BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 380 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 21.06.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 11.05.2011 |
Karam Singh son of Sarban Singh r/o Village Kathari, P.O.Lapar,Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana through Special Power of Attorney holder Gurdev Singh son of Sh.Mehanga Singh r/o H.No.369/71, Mohali, District Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.24-25, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 2. M/s T.T. Automobiles, G.T.Road, Village Bhatmajra, Sirhind-140406 through its Manager. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Karam Singh through his special power of attorney holder Sh.Gurdev Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of vehicle Tata-4018 Truck bearing registration No.PB-23-F-8681 which was insured with the OP-1 for the period from 05.02.09 to 04.02.2010. It is case of the complainant that he purchased the said vehicle after getting it financed from The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. On the unlucky day of 13.08.2009, the said vehicle met with an accident when it was being driven by Sh.Bahadur Singh. The DDR No.12 dated 13.08.209 (Annexure C-4) was got lodged at Police Station Ludhiana. The complainant informed the insurance company who in turn advised him to take the vehicle to authorized service of Tata and as such the vehicle was taken to M/s T.T.Automobiles, Sirhind. OP-2 gave estimate of Rs.5,84,496/- towards the repair of the truck. As per the complainant, on the advise of surveyor of OP-1, the vehicle was taken to Jalandhar. The complainant made the initial payment of Rs.70000/- on the asking of the surveyor of OP-1. It is the allegation of the complainant that the surveyor got the old cabin repaired instead of replacing with new one and also got the vehicle repaired from OP-2. it is further the case of the complainant that he made request to OP-1 to replace the whole cabin as the repaired cabin installed on the vehicle is not giving satisfactory performance. The complainant got the vehicle checked from his brother, who is authorized dealer and supplier of spare parts of Tata and others. He reported that due to installation of repaired cabin, the vehicle is not giving the satisfactory performance. In the end, it is prayed that installing of the old cabin and not replacing the cabin with new one amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, hence, this complaint. 2. OP-1 filed its written statement and took some preliminary objections viz-a-viz cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It is replied that the complainant himself took the vehicle to Jallandhar and thereafter purchased the cabin and got it installed in the vehicle. According to OP-1, the full amount of the claim has been paid on behalf of the complainant. The claim was settled on non-standard basis as the insured has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the vehicle had already been sold to third party. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the OPs raised the argument that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. 6. Section 11 deals with the jurisdiction of the Forum which is reproduced as under for the purpose of convenience. “Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,— a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. 7. The copy of the insurance cover note is Annexure C-2 and its perusal makes it clear that the same had been issued from the Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. The complainant has averred vide para No.5 of the complaint that the DDR No.12 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure C-4) was got lodged at Police Station Ludhiana. 8. Now it is established that the vehicle in question was insured by Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai (ICICI Lombard). It is also proved that the said vehicle met with an accident and the DDR No.12 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure C-4) was got recorded at Police Station Ludhiana. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., IV(2009) CPJ-40 (SC) that the expression “branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act means the Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen. It will lead to consequences of bench hunting if the complainant is allowed to file complaint anywhere in India where the branch Office of the company is situated. 9. Admittedly, the Truck in question bearing registration No.PB-23-F-8681 was insured by Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai(ICICI Lombard). It is also an admitted fact that the accident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of District Ludhiana. Confronted with this type of situation and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, we are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Consequently, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the Court having the jurisdiction in the matter as per law. 10. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 11.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
