DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 81
Instituted on: 02.03.2017
Decided on: 16.06.2017
Sukhwinder Singh aged about 35 years son of Hem Raj, resident of Village Guru Nanak Nagar, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, 10th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpat Rai Kadam Mark, Lower Parel Mumbai through its Managing Director.
2. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Eminent Mall, 1st Floor, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.
For OPs : Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Sukhwinder Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by getting insured the tractor Sonalika bearing registration number PB-11-CB-1028 vide cover note number 20000284865 for the period from 13.7.2016 to 12.7.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.12,824/-. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant has some agriculture land at village Channo and when the tractor was being driven by the driver Avtar Singh, it met with an accident on 25.9.2016 at Village Channo and due to that the tractor in question damaged badly. Thereafter the complainant intimated the Ops immediately about the accident and the Ops appointed Shri Sanjeev Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and as per his directions the tractor was brought to Harika Tractors, Sangrur Road, Patran for repairs and the tractor was got repaired, where he spent an amount of Rs.90,924/-, which was paid by the complainant and thereafter the complainant submitted all the relevant documents and accordingly, the OPs issued claim number. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops wrongly and without any reason repudiated the claim of the complainant, which is said to be a clear cut deficiency in service on their part. Thus, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.90,924/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the contract of insurance is commercial contract, as such claims under the policy are governed by terms and conditions of the policy and that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, as the tractor in question was not insured from Sangrur and that there is no office of the Opposite parties at Sangrur. On merits, it has been admitted that the tractor in question was insured with the OPs under commercial vehicle package miscellaneous group of vehicles policy, which was valid for the period from 13.7.2016 to 12.7.2017 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the complainant failed to get the spot inspection done from the Ops and no DDR or any other document regarding the accident was produced despite demand by the surveyor, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma through his letters dated 05.10.2016 and 13.10.2016. Lastly, it has been stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, as the commercial policy in question was not taken within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur, and further the Ops have no office or branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur. We have also perused the copy of cover note of the tractor in question, Ex.C-6, but it nowhere shows that the same was issued within the jurisdiction of Sangrur nor there is any mention that the cover note in question was issued at Sangrur. We have also perused the copy of certificate of insurance, which is on record as Ex.OP-3, again it nowhere shows that the policy was issued from Sangrur, whereas it is the specific stand of the Ops that the Ops have no branch office or any office within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur. Ex.OP-6 is the copy of motor insurance claim form and a bare perusal of it shows that the same was filled up at Patran within the District Patiala on 28.09.2016, whereas it is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced on record a single document, such as copy of jamabandi, copy of FIR or copy of DDR to show that the accident even caused at Channo on 25.09.2016 within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur. As such, we are of the considered opinion that no cause of action whatsoever has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Sangrur. Thus, the learned counsel for OPs has contended vehemently that the complaint being false and filed with malafide intention by narrating the wrong facts be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction only. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the complainant got the insurance of the vehicle in question within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur or the Ops have a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur. As such, without further going into the merits of the case, we find that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if he so desired. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 16, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
