Haryana

Karnal

CC/406/2021

Abdul Wahab - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Hardev Singh

18 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                                     Complaint No.406 of 2021

                                                                     Date of instt. 16.08.2021

                                                                     Date of Decision: 18.08.2021

 

 

Abdul Wahab son of Shri Shakil, resident of Village Chausana Vishat, AHT, Shamli, Uttar Prades.

                                                                             …….Complainant

                                                 Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Sector-12, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …..Opposite party.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

 

Before        Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.        

                   Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member

 

Present:     Shri Hardev Singh, counsel for complainant.

 

                    Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

                   As per version of complainant, he is registered owner of one car bearing registration No.UP19-L-0250 and the same was got insured from OP. On 02.05.2021, the said car was met with an accident at Saharanpur Road, UP, resultantly, the car was damaged and intimation was given to OP, upon this claim was lodged with the OP. On the assurance of surveyor, the complainant get the car repaired from Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal but despite the assurance, the OP has not disbursed the claim amount in favour of complainant and thus, the complainant is unable to get his car back from the Karnal Motors Ltd. Karnal.

                   A careful perusal of the file reveals that no cause of action has arisen  in District Karnal, therefoe, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

                   Learned counsel for complainant submitted that since the car has got repaired at Karnal, therefore, the cause of action has arisen in Karnal.

                   The jurisdiction to file a complaint before the District Commission is defined in Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission 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, ordinarily 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time

                   In the present complaint, the car in question was met with an accident at Saharanpur and the policy issued by the OP was from Delhi and the address of the complainant is of Shamli (UP). Further, there is nothing on record that any correspondence has been made with the OP by the complainant in the office of OP at Karnal. Therefore, only by repairing the car from Karnal Motors Ltd., Karnal, does not create any cuase of action in favour of complainant at Karnal.

                   Hence, keeping in view the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 18.08.2021

    President,         

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)     

     Member