West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/61/2019

SRI SURESH DEBNATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

NILAY CHAKRABORTY

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

To-day is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira.

Heard the Ld lawyer. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto.

Briefly stated the facts relevant for admission of this complaint is that the complainant got his Maruti Car (financed by OP No.7) insured with OP No. 1, valid from 09.02.2018 to 07.02.2019.  On 04.10.2018 two persons namely Bapi Ghosh and Shankar Ghosh enticed the complainant away from the Road at Hansimara to Phuntsholling and his vehicle was stolen by them from there. The complainant lodged an FIR on 13.10.2018 regarding theft of his vehicle with Jalpaiguri P.S. after he was released from Hospital where he was treated for 06 days.  OP No.2 was also duly informed.

OP No. 1 & 2 asked the complainant to deposit some documents but OP No.2 refused to receive necessary papers for insurance claim from the complainant though the theft claim was registered with the OP-Insurance Company.  The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 12.03.2019 requesting to release the insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 7,06,751/-. On 23.05.2019 complainant’s Advocate received a letter from OP No.6 informing the default of the complainant in paying outstanding installment.  OP No. 7 the financer also demanded re-payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,84,197/-.

Thus the basic purpose of purpose of purchasing the said policy remains frustrated as the Ops have not disbursed the insurance claim to the complainant.  Hence, is the case.

OP No. 1 resides and carries on business in Mumbai.  OP No.2 at Bhaktinagar of Jalpaiguri District, OP No.4 & 7 in Kolkata, OP No. 5 in New Delhi and OP No.6 in Chennai. Except OP No.3 Beekay Auto Pvt. Ltd. all the Ops are thus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

The allegation of the complainant is that Ops have not disbursed the Insurance Claim of Rs. 7,06,751/- and he (the complainant) prays before this Forum for a direction to the Ops to disburse the claim amount. The address of the OP No.3 only is shown within the territorial area of Siliguri. But this OP appears to be not concerned with the allegation as it is not the Insurance Company nor a branch thereof but just a seller only.  A seller does not assure. There is no grievance regarding sale or purchase. At Para-3 of the plaint, the complainant states that the sale representative of the OP No.3 convinced him to avail the insurance from OP No.5, but he actually  got his vehicle assured by the OP No.1.  Certainly the said sale representative did not convince him to insure his vehicle with OP  No.1.  Thus is the very reason why the sale-representative has not been made a party to the case rather, the Dealer has been made a party against whom no grievance is stated in the plaint.  Dealer and sale-representative is not the same, nor is the sale a cause of action.

It is thus palpable that OP No.3 has been implicated in the case just to give an impression/notion in the mind of the Forum that at least, part of cause of action occurred within the territorial limits of this Forum.  This Forum is of the intention not to be influenced by such motivated implication of the OP No.3 (seller) with this case.  Nor do the Forum view the OP No.3 (seller at Siliguri) to be an essential party to the case which is of insurance claim.  Hence, this complainant can not be admitted for want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence it is rejected.