By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
Complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the act of opposite parties in repudiating claim of complainant with respect to the theft of his vehicle KL 11 AF 3993 car and for an Order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,25,000/- towards claim, Rs.2,00,000/- as expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complaint is as follows:- Complainant purchased a car, Tata Indigo
CS on 23rd September 2010 bearing registration number KL 11 AF 3993 and insured the same vehicle with opposite party No.1 for a sum total value of Rs.4,92,547/- vide policy number 571300/31/11/6100012419 for a period one year extending from 23/09/2010 to 22.09.2011 which was subsequently renewed up to midnight of 22.09.2012 for sum of Rs.4,25,000/-. The policy covered the vehicle from all the risk and damages to the owner and to the vehicle, third party etc... The complainant was residing at Thamarassery for the upkeep of his rubber estate while so on 12.10.2012 the vehicle was stolen from the complainant's possession between 00.30 hours and 6.00 hours from his residence. The complainant immediately approached Thamarassery police and made a complaint, and on that complaint police lodged an FIR vide crime No.531/2011 of Thamarassery Police, the complainant intimated the Opposite party No.1 regarding the theft vide letter dated 13.10.2011 send through DTDC courier services and also the complainant informed Tata Motors Finance Limited at Calicut vide letter dated 13.10.2011, Since the stolen vehicle had a hire purchase finance arrangement. The complainant also intimated his insurance advisor/agent the opposite party No.1 who is an agent of the opposite party No.2 and is the person who had issued the policy for the stolen car and also had serviced the policy at regular intervals. The complainant intimated the opposite party No.1 over phone at first instance and secondly in person and further also in writing and opposite party No.1 acknowledged the same and assured complainant that he will also do all need full for the process of insurance claim and at same instance issued the claim to complainant to fill and summit for claim.
3. The complainant approached opposite parties for settlement of insurance of car lost in theft and then opposite parties demanded that the claim can be only process, once the police makes the the final report regarding the theft. Later on 27.09.2012 police filed final report and complainant handed over a copy to opposite party No.1 and he assured the claim would be processed at the earliest. Mean while the financier for the stolen car that is Tata Motors Finance Limited insisted the complainant to pay the hire purchase amount (all the EMIs) and requested to close the hire purchase finance arrangement. The Tata Motors finance deputed Mr. Shaji one among the finance executives of the company to meet the complainant and the opposite parties and held discussion with insurance officials at the opposite party No.2's office in the presence of the complainant. At the instance the insurance officials managed to convince the finance executive and the complainant that the claim is under process and would be completed within a short time, believing this the complainant borrowed entire hire purchase amount from an external source and closed the finance arrangement believing that the claim would be honoured on time and he shall repay the borrowed money.
4. The complainant says that he had completed all the legal formality and intimated the theft to the opposite parties and submitted claim forms with documents, but the opposite parties repudiated the claim, aggrieved by this, the complainant filed this complaint. On receipt of complaint, Notice was sent to opposite parties and the opposite party No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed version denying all the material averments in the complaint. Opposite party No.2 to 4 did not filed version. The opposite party No.1 also contented that there is no jurisdiction for this Forum to entertain the complaint since the opposite party resides at Kozhikode district and cause of action arose there and Opposite party No.1 has no branch and service in Wayanad. The opposite party No.1 filed I.A. No.294/2013 for a preliminary hearing on the question of maintainability on territorial jurisdiction. The complainant filed counter in I.A No.294/2013. On perusing the I.A 294/2013 and its counter, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum on the question of
territorial jurisdiction?
5. Point No.1:- As regards to point No.1, both sides were heard. On verifying the complaint, the Forum found that the complainant had taken the policy from the opposite parties office at Kozhikode. The complainant was residing at Malaparamba in Kozhikode district at that time. Moreover, the theft of vehicle was also happened at Thamarassery Kozhikode district and the Thamarassery police investigated the matter and filed final report. The opposite party No.1 is residing in Kozhikode and carries business in the same district and opposite party No.2 is also at Kozhikode. Opposite party No.3 is having office at Kochi. The complainant have no dealing with the office of opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.4 is only a branch office of National Insurance company limited at Wayanad. The complainant is now residing at Wayanad district. Section 11(2)(a) Section 17(2) (b) of Consumer Protection Act states that if the opposite parties have branch office at a place other than the place where cause of action arise, a consumer can file a complaint at the Forum's jurisdiction where branch office situates.
6. But in this case, complainant was residing in Kozhikode district at the time of the inception of policy and insured from the office of opposite party No.2 at Kozhikode. The cause of action took place at Kozhikode district, when the complainant was residing at Kozhikode district No cause of action fully or partly took place in Wayanad, District. Suppose if the complainant started residing in Kannur district or else where in the country, he would have filed the complaint there. So that cannot be taken as a criteria for getting jurisdiction. Mere location of a branch or office of the opposite party within in the area of a particular Forum does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Forum for that area (Reported in 2013 December part 12 CPR page 43). The complainant started residing in Wayanad district subsequent to the inception of policy and incident of theft. The opposite party No.1 produced a ruling reported in 2009(4) KLT SN56 SC (C No.50), Wherein the Honorable Supreme Court held that U/s 17 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the expression “Branch Office” in amended 17(2) would means branch office where cause of action has arisen. The Honorable Supreme Court held that filing of complaint anywhere in India, where branch office is situated will lead to absurdity consequences and will lead to bench hunting.
7. Here in this case, the entire incident took place at Kozhikode and the complainant was residing at Kozhikode at that time. We are of the opinion that the proper Forum to file this complaint is the District Forum, Kozhikode. Nothing prevented the complainant to do so. In order to avoid absurdity by way of bench hunting the complainant can file the complaint at the place where the cause of action had arised. Simply because a branch office of opposite party is situated at Wayanad and the complainant is residing now at Wayanad district will not give rise to territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint in Wayanad Forum. So the Forum allowed the I.A No.294/2013 considering the above aspects. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Since the I.A. No.294/2013 is allowed, the Forum found that the complaint is filed out of jurisdiction. Thus this complaint is also not maintainable before this Forum under jurisdiction aspects.
In the result the complaint is closed with a liberty to file the complaint before the proper Forum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of January 2014.
Date of Filing:- 31.08.2013.
