Delhi

North East

CC/147/2024

NITU DEVI & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 147/24

 

In the matter of:

 

1     2.     3.     4.     5.     6.     7.	Smt. Nitu Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Fulendra Pandit,   Ms. Chanchla Kumari ( Aged 14 years) D/o Lt. Sh. Fulendra Pandit   Ms. Manchal Kumari ( Aged 10 years) D/o Lt. Sh. Fulendra Pandit   Ms. Anchal Kumari( Aged 09 years) D/o Lt. Sh. Fulendra Pandit   Sh. Vishal ( Aged 07 years) S/o Lt. Sh. Fulendra Pandit   Smt. Gouri Devi W/o Sh. Pokhan Pandit @ DukhiPandit Sh. PokhanPandit @ DukhiPandit S/o Bandhan Pandit   R/o Kharkhari Birni, village Baghanal, P.O. Jawaharnagar, P.S. Birni, Karmatanr, Distt. Girdih, Jharkhand-825324 Also at:- Rama Krishna Enclave, Khora, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P 201301 ( Complainant No. 2 to 5 are minors being represented through their mother/Natural Guardian/ Nitu Devi/ Complainant No.1)	Complainants
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office:- ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer SavarkarMarg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025 Through its CMD/MD/DGM/SDM/A.R.   Regional Office:- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor Unit No. 101, Station Box at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095	Opposite Party

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency in services towards Complainants.
2. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Complainants that regional office of the Opposite Party is situated at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so this District Commission was competent to adjudicate the matter.
3. In the present case, as per memo of parties, Complainants are residing at Jharkhand and their alternate address is Rama Krishna Enclave, Khora, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. The perusal of the file reveals that the subject policy was issued from the office of the Opposite Party Insurance Company at Lucknow, U.P. which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
4. Further, the present complaint is regarding claim for Personal Accident Owner Driver claim filed by the Legal representatives of the deceased Insured. The perusal of complaint and material on record reveals that the accident upon which the complaint is based took place in Ghaziabad causing grievous injuries to the deceased Insured. The deceased insured was treated in Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P. where he succumbed to injuries and FIR was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Ghaziabad, U.P. The death certificate was also issued from concerned authority at Ghaziabad,U.P., which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
5. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 passed on 20/10/2009 wherein it has been held as follows:-

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17 (2) of the Act, which does not leadto an absurd consequence. If thecontention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”

 

6. Perusal of the file shows that the Complainants have failed to place on record any document which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the Opposite Party at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095. Hence, neither the complainants nor the Opposite Party   or the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.
7. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of above authority.
8. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the Complainants along with annexures, if any, against acknowledgment. A copy of the samebe retained for records. The complainants may file the complaint in the Forum of competent territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. Complaint is accordingly, disposed of in above terms.

 

9. Order announced on 03.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)               President