Haryana

Panchkula

CC/50/2015

PRAMOD KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE. - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG.

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                     

Consumer Complaint No	:	50 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	16.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.03.2015

Sh.Pramod Kumar S/o Sh.Rama Shankar Mishra, R/o (1) H.No.988/10, Badal Colony, Zirakpur. (2) H.No.921, Sector-19, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         The General Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office IFFCO Sadan, C1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through General Manager/Incharge, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi.

2.         The Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B & C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through Manager/Authorized Signatory, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., ITGI Strategic Business, MuskarteRaho, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B & C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:                    Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                  Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Kunal Garg, Advocate, for the complainant. 

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Today the case is fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint.
2. Pramod Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he insured his three wheeler vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) bearing registration No.HR-68A-4531 with the Ops. The Ops renewed the insurance policy of three wheeler vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) for Rs.1,60,000/- vide cover note No.73444918 dated 05.10.2012 which was valid for the period from 28.09.2012 to 27.09.2013 midnight with a premium of Rs.4620.50. On 20.04.2013 at 4.00 PM, the complainant parked his vehicle at the Mansa Devi, V.I.P. parking backside of vita booth which was found missing at night at 11.00 PM. The complainant lodged the FIR No.31 dated 24.04.2013 u/s 379 of IPC in P.S. Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. On 26.04.2013, the complainant orally intimated to the Ops and on 02.07.2013, the investigator (Sonu Bhola) of the Ops sent a letter to the complainant to provide the relevant documents. On 16.07.2014, the complainant has received the copy of untraced report vide order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the court which was submitted to the Ops on 17.07.2014 alongwith other documents i.e. copy of permit, copy of permission by Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula, copy of FIR, copy of letter to RTA, Panchkula, copy of letter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula about the untraced report and copy of request letter by the complainant to the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops many times who stated every time that the cheque has been prepared and the same would be issued soon but the cheque has not been issued so far. The complainant sent a legal notice to the Ops on 12.01.2015 and requested to make the payment within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant insured three wheeler vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) bearing registration No.HR-68A-4531 with the Op No.2 at Chandigarh. The claim was lodged with the Op No.2 at Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the vehicle was stolen from Mata Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula and the part of the cause of action has arisen at Panchkula. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and after going through the record available in the case file, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter in question as none of the parties are residing and the policy was taken from Branch Office at Chandigarh, the claim was also lodged at Chandigarh. Just because the vehicle was stolen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum will not entitle the complainant to seek redressal from this Forum. The complainant has failed to produce any document to prove that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction and to decide the matter in question as the vehicle was stolen at Panchkula. It has been provided in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that

11(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.

4. In the instant case, no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and for that reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Soni Surgical vs. NIC, 2009(4) CPJ page 40, wherein it has been held in para No.8 that Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned 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 at Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned 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 sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity (vide G.P. Singh’s Principals of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79).
5. The reference can also be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Rajasthan in case titled as Hemant Gupta vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2006) CPJ page 81 wherein it has been decided that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 11- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166 – Jurisdiction of Forum – Territorial Jurisdiction - Challenge against order of Forum dismissing complaint on ground of jurisdiction - No part of contract mode at J - Parties do not hail from J - Business not situated in J nor any branch office of O.P. at J - Simply because accident took place in territorial jurisdiction of J, cannot be said any cause of action arose at J-Under Section 166 of Act of 1988, choice given to claimant to file claim anywhere, but such choice not given under Section 11 of Act of 1986 - Forum at J rightly observed it has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint.
6. The Hon’ble State Commission, (U.T.) Chandigarh in case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. versus Gulab Road Lines & Anr. II (2000) CPJ page 321 has also taken similar view and held that Section 11(2)- Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance Company having office at Chandigarh- Policy issued at Chandigarh – Goods lost in Madhya Pradesh- Complaint filed at Chandigarh - Jurisdiction challenged - No merit in plea.
7. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

17.03.2015           ANIL SHARMA ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                       MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

           

                                         

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT