Haryana

Kurukshetra

259/2017

Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBS Motor - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Kumar

06 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.259 of 2017.

                                        Date of instt.: 19.12.2017.                                                                   

                                        Date of Decision:06.12.2019.

 

Ramesh Chand son of Tulsi Ram, r/o village Nalvi, Tehsil Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. KBS Motors Private Ltd. H.Q. village Tepla, Ambala- Jagadhri Road, Saha, Distt. Ambala, authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., through its Managing Director.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.232-234, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh- 160022, through its Managing Director.

 

        ..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member                                                    

Present:     Shri Nirmal Thol, Advocate for the complainant.             

 Shri Parveen Chopra, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

 Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, moved by complainant Ramesh Chand against KBS Motors and other, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased Quanto C4 Car from the OP No.1 amounting to Rs.7,56,312/- on 04.4.2016 and the same was got insured with OP No.2 through OP No.1 w.e.f. 04.4.2016 to 03.4.2017. That on 15/16.3.2017, he parked his car in the house of Dalip and at about 2.00 AM, the servicant of Dalip namely Vinod Kumar came in the house of complainant and told him that the horn of car is blowing. The complainant reached at the spot and found that the car was totally burnt. That complainant gave information to Control Room, Kurukshetra and the police came at the spot and recorded the statement of complainant and registered DDR No.22 dated 18.3.2017. It is further submitted that complainant has approached to the ops many times and the ops directed the complainant to submit the documents regarding the insurance amount and the complainant has submitted the documents as per the directions of the ops but till today the ops have not paid the amount of insurance of Rs.7,18,496/- to the complainant and putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. That the ops are harassing the complainant intentionally and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of ops towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op No.1 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties and jurisdiction. In fact the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from KBS Motors (P) Ltd. Ambala. On merits, rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

                OP No.2 in its separate reply while taking preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction; locus-standi; maintainability; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true and material facts are that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 16.3.2017 and on receipt of intimation, Shri Mohit Sharma, an independent IRDA licensed surveyor was deputed by the answering OP for survey of the vehicle and assessment of loss, who submitted his report dated 18.2.2018. On perusal of the report and documents provided by complainant, it was noted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 31.3.2016 and its temporary registration certificate was valid up to 29.4.2016. The complainant had not applied for permanent registration number till the date of accident i.e. 16.3.2017 which means that the vehicle was plying without permanent registration for almost 11 months. The complainant was bound to apply for permanent registration within 30 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The act of complainant in not getting the vehicle registered within stipulated time is clear violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act and as such, the claim was not payable. In view of above, the claim of complainant was repudiated by the competent authority and a letter dated 19.2.2018 was sent to the complainant. However, in absent of any revert from the complainant, the claim was finally repudiated and letter dated 15.3.2018 was sent to the complainant. On merits, while reiterating the pleas as taken in the preliminary objections it is submitted that liability if any of the answering op is limited as per survey report only. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and dismissal of complaint prayed for.

4.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.CW2/A to CW16/A. The learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Ex.RW1/A alongwith Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             At the outset, the first and foremost question arises before this Forum for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not? From the record, we found that the complainant purchased the car in question from the OP No.1 situated at Saha, District Ambala and got insured the same from OP No.2 situated Chandigarh, so no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra. However, it is pertinent to mention here that even the complainant has not produced any document on the case file to establish that any cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra. Even if, it is presumed that the branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, but mere branch office does not create any jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kurukshetra. As such so this Forum at Kurukshetra has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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”.

7.             Keeping in view the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & try the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, complainants is at liberty to file the complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction, if so advised, and in that eventuality, complainants will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint, shall be exempted. The complainants can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to hand over the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be indexed and be consigned to record-room, after due compliance.   

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:06.12.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.