Haryana

StateCommission

CC/81/2014

Amin Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

L & T GIC - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.81 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 22.08.2014                  Date of Decision:16.12.2016

 

Amin Khan S/o Nur Mohd. R/o Village Jalapur, Tehsil Hathin District Palwal (Haryana).

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

L & T General Insurance Company Limited through its Director, 6^th Floor, city 2, Plot No.177, CST Road, Near Bandra Kurla Telephone Exchange, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai.

…..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Deedpak Aggarwal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the opposite party.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased hydraulic excavator for Rs. 52,38,223/-, as mentioned invoice Ex.C-1. The said excavator was insured by opposite party (O.P.) vide insurance policy, copy of which is Ex.C-2.  That excavator was damaged on 30.01.2013 due to fall of heavy boulders upon the same while working at quarry near village Kullawat, Udhanwas, Tehsil Tijara, Distt.Alwar Rajasthan. He immediately gave information to O.P. as mentioned in Ex.C-1.  Sandeep Aggarwal was appointed as surveyor and he submitted his report Ex.R-2 dated 28.02.2014. He submitted quotation Ex.C-3 about the cost of repairs. After getting his machine repaired the original documents were handed over to the surveyor, but, he mentioned that requisite documents were not supplied. His claim was wrongly closed as ‘no claim’.  O.P. be directed to pay Rs.24,15,780/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 01.05.2013 till realization, besides compensation qua mental harassment, litigation expenses etc. 

2.      O.P filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that this commission was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because no cause of action accrued at this place. The insurance policy was issued from Banglore, whereas the incident took place in the state of Rajasthan.  Letters dated 20.02.2013, 20.07.2013, 26.08.2013 and 21.01.2014 were sent to him to supply the requisite documents, but, to no avail. Hence his claim was closed as ‘no claim’.  The alleged loss occurred out of the coverage area. The machine was hypothecated with HDFC limited, but, the same is not a party in this complaint.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that complainant is resident of Haryana and policy was also received at this place so this commission is having jurisdiction to try this complaint.

5.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of invoice Ex.C-1, it is clear that this machine was handed over to complainant at Delhi. Insurance policy Ex.C-2 was issued at Banglore. The accident took place at the area falling within the jurisdiction of District Alwar, Rajasthan. As per section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) a complaint can be filed within  whose jurisdiction, cause of action has accrued or the O.P. is carrying  business or has a branch office. In the present case neither the O.P. is having branch office in Haryana nor cause of action accrued within the State of Haryana, so this commission is not having any territorial jurisdiction keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (1) RCR Civil 1. In para Nos.3 and 4 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

 

“3. ……………On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.”

“4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire 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. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”

 

In para No.9 and 10 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“9.       ……….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.

 

10. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

6.      When this commission is not having jurisdiction, it is not supposed to give findings on the merits because judgements without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  Resultantly complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

December, 16th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.