Delhi

North East

CC/348/2024

SMT. SANTOSH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.348/24

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Santosh Jain W/o Lt. Sh. Dhanendra Jain R/o 1140, ward no. 111, Baradari, Behind Novelty Cinema, Tilak Bazaar Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006	Complainant
	Versus
1.                   2.             3.         4.           5.	M/s ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st to 6th Floor, Varun Tower II, Opp. Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangna 500016   M/s ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its manager/authorized person Branch office at:- Dilshad Garden Metro Station Shahdara Delhi-110032   M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Through its manager/authorized person Head office at, ICICI Bank Tower Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051   M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Through its manager/authorized person E 1, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extention, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055   M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Through its manager/authorized person Branch office at: 28/12, 60 feet Road Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in services towards Complainant.
2. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant is that the daughter of Complainant was policy holder with Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party issued certificate of insurance under ICICI Lumbard Group Secure Mind auto loan Policy 4080/ICICIAL/139972669/00/000 system generated policy dated 29.11.17 which was valid up to 26.11.22 for sum assured loan amount of Rs. 3,23,519/- which was linked with car loan account no. LIDEL00036741972 of ICICI Bank. The daughter of Complainant died on 13.05.21 and Complainant approached to the Opposite Parties for the settlement of loan amount and NOC of the bank but Opposite Parties have not settled the amount and demanding the outstanding amount of the account. The Opposite Party no.5 had given the statement of account to the Complainant, thereafter, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 and filed a claim against said policy. Thereafter one official of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 came to the house of Complainant for inspection of the document which was satisfied and received the document. Further, after some time, the Opposite Party sent mail to the Complainant for requirement of some other document which was sent by Complainant through mail and speed post on 27.07.23. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 again demanding document which has been already received in the Opposite Party office. 
3. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that the Branch office of M/s ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and the Branch office of the Opposite Party No.5 i.e. M/s ICICI Bank Limited are situated at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so this District Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that the subject policy was taken by the Complainant’s daughter online through Internet.
4. The perusal of complaint and material on record reveals that neither the subject policy was issued from nor any claim under the said policy was filed in the branch office of Opposite Party No.2 situated at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. During the course of arguments, the counsel for Complainant could not show any document in support of her contention that this commission has territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint. The Learned counsel submitted that the statement of loan account was issued from Branch office of the. M/s ICICI Bank Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.5 which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
5. It appears from the material on record, the loan which was secured under the subject policy was not obtained from Opposite Party No.5 nor has the Complainant been able to show that any part of cause of action arose at the branch office of Opposite Party No.5. In such case, the mere fact that statement of loan account was issued by Opposite Party No.5 having branch office at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Commission to entertain and decide the consumer complaint presented by the Complainant.  
6. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 passed on 20/10/2009 wherein it has been held as follows:-

“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.

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. In out opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17 (2) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the Ld. 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 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 sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”

 

7. Perusal of the file shows that the Complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the Opposite Party at Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095.
8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of above authority.
9. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the Complainant along with annexures, if any, against acknowledgment. A copy of the same be retained for records. The Complainants may file the complaint in the Forum of competent territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. Complaint is accordingly, disposed of in above terms.
10. Order announced on 21.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)