Haryana

Kaithal

148/21

Sarwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.K Ruhal

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 148 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:    21.06.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       28.03.2024.

 

Sarwan Singh s/o Shri Guljar Singh, r/o Ward No.2, Noorwala Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                 Versus

 

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Service Office: 1012/11, Opposite Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Managing Director.
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Sadan C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Manager.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.2, Sector 28-C, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri S.K. Ruhal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER     -     NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is registered owner of truck TATA 2518 bearing Registration No.HR-61A-6433 Model 2011 and the same was insured by OP No.1 under the policy No.97025679 for the period from 14.03.2016 to 13.03.2017. That on 27.06.2016 at about 09:00 PM, he parked the said truck on Bichpari Road, Panipat after locking the same and he went his home. That on 28.06.2016, in the morning at about 06:00 AM, when he reached at the place, the truck was not found there as some unknown persons have stolen the same. That he moved a complaint to Police Station City Panipat, vide which, FIR No.857 dated 04.07.2016 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged. That unfortunately, the police could not trace the truck and finally on 05.02.2021, submitted the final report as Untrace Report before the Court of Shri Jatin Garg, learned CJM, Panipat. That thereafter, he submitted application to OP No.1 on 15.02.2021 regarding issuing claim of theft, but all in vain. That he served legal notice dated 15.04.2021 upon the OPs in this regard, but they neither replied the same nor paid the claim amount. That the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement stating therein that the present complaint is barred by law of limitation, as per complainant, the vehicle of complainant was stolen on 27.06.2016 and claim of complainant was repudiated by OPs vide letter dated 02.02.2018 and as per Section 69 of CP Act 2019, the present complaint should have been filed before 02.02.2020, but the same has been filed in the year 2021, after lapse of prescribed time limit, as such, present complaint is not maintainable. That the vehicle was a commercial vehicle was being used for commercial activities, a commercial policy was availed for the same. Hence, the present complaint is beyond the scope of CP Act 2019. That there was delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and 36 days delay in intimating the OPs about the alleged theft, violating the mandatory condition No.1 of the policy. Upon receipt of belated intimation of claim, OPs repudiated All India Claims Recovery Consultants for investigation into the matter, who submitted their report dated 15.03.2017 that the ignition key and door lock key provided by the insured are not looking used keys and it seems totally unused. That the insured stated in writing that he got the locked replaced prior 4 days of theft but despite various request, he failed to submit the lockset change bill. This raise deep apprehension that original keys might have left in the vehicle when it was parked and left unattended which helped the thieves in their act of sealing the vehicle. Moreover, the investigation report reveals that the vehicle was parked on roadside at village Noorwala Bichpari Road, where no security arrangements were available  and several unknown people passes through this road which help the mater easier for the thieves to commit the crime of theft of vehicle easily. That as per condition No.5 of the insurance policy, the insured is duty bound to take all the reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss or damage. Hence, the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy and OPs has rightly repudiated his claim, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with special and exemplary costs.

4.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C13.

5.                On the other hand, OPs in their evidence, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-8.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                At the outset, learned counsel for the OPs has raised strong objection that this Commission at Kaithal lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as neither the complainant was resident of Kaithal nor he (complainant) purchased the policy in question from Kaithal, as such, no cause of action has arisen, within the jurisdiction of this Commission and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground.  

8.                Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into any other controversy of the case, firstly, this Commission has to decide whether this Commission at Kaithal has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

9.                From the policy documents Annexure C-2 and C-3, we found that the said policy has been issued, by the OPs, from their New Delhi office. In the policy document Annexure C-2 and C-3, in the column Insured’s Name, the address of complainant is mentioned of Panipat and this fact is also evident from the title of the complaint. As per complainant, the vehicle in question has been stolen from Bichpari Road, Panipat. The complainant lodged FIR in this regard in Police Station Panipat City Annexure C-4. Moreover, the Untrace Report has been submitted, by the police, before the Court of learned CJM, Panipat, which was accepted by the said Court Annexure C-5 to C-8. The complainant has issued the legal notice dated 15.04.2021 to the OPs through advocate from Panipat Annexure C-9 and postal receipts Annexure C-10 to C12. In the Aadhaar Card Annexure C-13, there is address mentioned of Panipat. No doubt, in the policy documents Annexure C-2 and C-3, in the column Servicing Office, there is mentioned the address of OP branch of Kaithal, but mere branch office at Kaithal does not create any jurisdiction at Kaithal, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kaithal.

10.              So, from the perusal of above documentary evidence, produced by the complainant on the case file himself, it is crystal clear that no cause of action has been arisen, within the jurisdiction of this Commission at Kaithal, rather all are happened in Panipat i.e. purchasing the policy in question, stolen of the vehicle in question, lodging of FIR by the complainant in this regard, issuance of legal notice to OPs as well as submission of Untrace Report, by the police, before the learned CJM Court, Panipat. Even the complainant also belongs to Panipat. Hence, this Commission at Kaithal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed, on this very ground. Our view is also supported by the case law titled M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010(1) CLT 252, wherein, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. Since this Commission has come to the conclusion, not having jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, then it is not in propriety to make any comment on the merits of the case.

11.              So, keeping in view the ratio of the case law, laid down by the superior Fora, referred to above as well as detailed facts and circumstances of the present case and without commenting on the merits of the case, we dismiss the present complaint, with liberty to the complainant, to file afresh complaint, in any appropriate Court of law, as per provisions of law, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 69 of Limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:28.03.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.