Adv.for the complainant - Sri A.K.Mishra
Adv.for the O.P-1 &2 - Sri R.K.Mahakur
Adv.for the O.P-3 - Sri S.S.Deo & Other
Date of filing of the case –27.08.2015
Date of order - 12.07.2017
ORDER
Sri A.K.Purohit, PRESIDENT
1. The Case of the Complainant is that his truck bearing Regd. No.OD-03-B-4702 was insured with the OP and during the validity of the insurance the said vehicle met with an accident on dt. 05.01.2015 near Barpali in Bargarh District. To this the complain ant reported the insurance company, who on receipt of the complainant deputed a surveyor for assessment of loss. On the advice of the surveyor, the complainant got repaired the accident vehicle in the showroom of OP No.3 and after repair the complainant paid Rs.11,500/- to OP No.3 on dated 16.02.2015 for repairing cost. The complainant alleges that, although the insurance company is liable to pay the repairing charges of the accident vehicle , the company neither settled the claim of the complainant nor paid the repairing charges. Hence the complainant.
2 Although notice has been served on OP No.1 & 2 neither they appears nor have filed their written version. OP No.3 contested the case by filing his written version. In his written version the OP No.3 admitted the case of the complainant.
3. Both parties are absent on the date of hearing of the case i.e on dt.28.06.2017 Perused the pleading and document available on record, Before going into the merit of the case it is necessary to discuss on the point of jurisdiction of this forum in deciding the case of the complainant. Admittedly. the Ops are resident of Sambalpur and Gurgaon. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Barpali in the district of Bargarh. The said vehicle was repaired at Sambalpur in the showroom of Op No.3. Therefore the cause of action arose in the district of Bargarh and Sambalpur. Neither the Ops are resident of Bolangir District nor the cause of action arose at Bolangir District. Therefore this Forum has no Jurisdiction to decide the case of the Complainant.
4. It is seen from the complainant petition that, the OP having its branch all over India and the OP No.3 having a branch of the insurance company including his show room at Bolangir. This pleading of the Complainant shows that, this forum having jurisdiction as the company having its branch office at Bolangir and the show room of OP No.3. But the position of law is that , the meaning of branch office is where the cause of action arose. In this contest it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) CPR 28 (SC), Sonic surgical Vrs National Insurance Company Ltd. The relevant portion is quoted below:-
“9. XXX 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 Tamilnadu 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 Sec.17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. XXX.10 In the present case, since the cause of action arose at ambala the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint”.
5 Regard being had to the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case of the Complainant. The Complainant is at liberty to prefer his case before any other Forum having Jurisdiction if so advised. Since this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case it is not necessary to discuss on the merit of the case.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
