Haryana

StateCommission

A/227/2015

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICRO TURNER - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOEL

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.227 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 24.02.2015

and 10.03.2015

Date of Decision: 03.11.2015

 

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, The Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Dodenekundi Bangalore Karnataka 560037 through its authorized signatory Ms. Shivali Sharma available at mercantile House, 7^th floor, 15, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s Micro Turner, Hisar Road, Rohtak through its Manager, H.R.Harinder Dahiya.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mrs.Anjali Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts of the complainant are that complainant was owner of vehicle/car ford Icon bearing registration No. HE-12N-1773 and the same was got insured with the opposite party (O.P.).  Insurance was valid from 03.12.2011 to 02.12.2012.  Unfortunately vehicle met with an accident on 11.07.2012 near Binola Distt. Gurgaon.  Intimation was given to the O.P. Surveyor conducted the inspection of the vehicle and same was got repaired from Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon and Rs.1,61,263/- were spent.  He completed all the formalities for getting the insurance claim, but, O.P. did not settle claim despite repeated requests.  On 14.08.2012   notice was sent to it, but, O.P. rejected the claim vide letter dated 08.08.2012 on the ground that damage to the internal components were solely attributable to the failure on the part of the driver to exercise ordinary prudence as expected of every insured.

2.      Appellant-opposite party filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that on getting information about incident, surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss.  It was wrong that complainant spent a sum of Rs.1,61,263/- on vehicle.  The vehicle of the complainant hit the stone and thus front under body was badly damaged.  Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1613.73 only.  Claim was repudiated after due application of mind and as per terms and conditions of the policy.  Objections about locus standi, territorial jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak  (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint  and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,61,263/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling Aggrieved, therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal alleging that forum has not appreciated the law and facts available on file properly.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently argued  O.P.-appellant is providing service at the door. The vehicle was insured at Rohtak so District Forum, Rohtak was having jurisdiction to try this complaint.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  There is no evidence on the file showing that insurance policy was obtained at Rohtak.  From the  perusal of cheque No.007356 it is clear that same was issued at Panchkula.  From the perusal of cover note EX.C-9 it is clear that the vehicle was registered at the address of Rohtak, but, communication address was given of  SCO No.352 Sector 9 Panchkula. In this way no transaction  took place at Rohtak.  As per averments of the complainant it is clear that accident took place within the area of District Gurgaon.  Insurance policy was issued from New Delhi.  In this way no cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the District forum Rohtak.  Learned District Forum Rohtak was not having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and was not supposed to give findings on the merits.   For want of territorial jurisdiction District Forum Rohtak should have returned the complaint to file it before the District forum having jurisdiction to try the complaint as provided under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( In short “Act”).   Judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity 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.   In view of the above discussion impugned order dated 15.01.2015 is set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.  However the complainant is granted liberty to file fresh complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction to try this dispute.  If the amount is already paid may be recovered by the appellant.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellnt against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

9.      Complainant-Respondent may be given benefit of limitation as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, while computing period for limitation if he files a fresh complaint before the competent forum.

 

November 03rd, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.