Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/08/105

Vijish Velandi,(Rep by his P[ower of Attorney Holder,C.K.Varghese) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Oriental Insurance Co;Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.K.Varghese

31 Jan 2010

ORDER


AlappuzhaCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 105
1. Vijish Velandi,(Rep by his P[ower of Attorney Holder,C.K.Varghese)Chooral Vettathu House,Venmony.P.o.Chengannoor Taluk, 689 509AlappuzhaKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Managing Director,Oriental Insurance Co;LtdOriental House,A,25/27,Asaf Ali Road,New Delhi, 110002New DelhiNew Delhi2. BranchManager,OrientalInsurance Company LtdNo;05,Richmond Plazza,Richmond Road,Bangalore,560 025BangaloreBangalore ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 31 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

 

            Sri. Vijish Velandi Sree Valsam, Near District Court, Thalasserry in Kannur District has filed this complaint before the Forum through his Power  Holder Sri. C.K. Varghese, Chooravettathu Hosue, Venmoni P.O., Chengannur Taluk in Alappuzha District against the opposite parties M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. represented by its Managing Director, New Delhi and Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Bangalore.  The complaint is for a direction to the opposite parties for the release of 3,32,000/- as compensation in respect of the insurance claim for his  car which involved in an accident on 24.12.2004 at Dhone in Andhra Pradesh on National Highway No.7.   It is stated that the vehicle was covered under comprehensive insurance by policy vide No.421703/1262/05 of the opposite party for the said amount.    The policy was for a period from 01.06.2004 to 31.5.2005 and that the policy was issued from Bangalore in Karnataka state.   It is stated that accident (cause of action) took place at Andhra Pradesh and policy was issued from Bangalore branch of the opposite party.    The complainant Vijish Velandi is residing at Thalasserry in Kannur District and his power of attorney holder Sri. C.K.Varghese is residing at Venmoni in Alappuzha.  The opposite party contended that the petition is not maintainable before this Forum due to the lack  of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.    We have heard both sides regarding the matter of the maintainability of this petition.  It is to be noted that the cause of action of this complaint had arisen at Andhra Pradesh and that the policy certificate of the opposite party had issued from Bangalore branch of the opposite party.    

            2.  In this context, we have perused the entire documents and heard the arguments of the learned counsel in respect of the maintainability petition. In this respect, we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case due to the reason that no cause of action, or part cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum; only on the basis of the fact that the opposite party has a branch office in this District.  Regarding the jurisdiction matter, recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case No.CA 1560/04 – Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.- observed as follows:-  “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 Tamil Nadu 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 S.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 S.17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.” (2009(4) KLT/SN 56 (CNo.50) SC.)     

            Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and based on the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the strong view that this Forum is not competent to entertain this complaint, due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction.   Hence Registry is directed to return the file to the complainant for further necessary steps; complainant is free to proceed against the opposite party by filing complaint before the appropriate Forum for relief prayed for. 

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010.

 

 

                                                                                                   Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan :

 

                                                                                                   Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

 

                                                                                                   Sd/- Smt.N. Shajitha Beevi:

 

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                                                                       By Order

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                 Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Oppo.parties/S.F.

Typed by:- pr/-

Compared by:-

 


HONORABLE K.Anirudhan, MemberHONORABLE JIMMY KORAH, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi, Member