Delhi

New Delhi

CC/9/2017

Prashant Neal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

Case No.CC/09/2017                                     Dated:

In the matter of:

 

SH. PRASHANT NEAL,

S/O SH. MANISH DEV PANDEY,

R/O 14/16, PUNJABI BAGH EXTN.,

NEW DELHI-110026.

 

                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT

    

VERSUS

  

 M/S LIBERTY VIDEOCON GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THROUGH

THE MANAGER

ALPS BUILDING, 56,

JANPATH ROAD, JANPATH,

CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

 

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

ORDER 

The complainant has alleged for deficiency in service and arbitrary repudiation of the insurance claim in the complaint concerning Volkswagan Jetta car with registration no. DL3CBM5628 under vehicle policy no. 2011-200102-15-1008547-00-000 for the period 06.01.2016 to 05.01.2017. the vehicle is stated to have stolen on 10.05.2016. FIR was lodged and OP Insurance Co. was duly informed. It is stated by the counsel for complainant that the policy was taken from Pitampura office of the OP and the other office of OP is at Janpath Road, New Delhi following under territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The record placed before us show that the exchange of the letters has been from Mumbai and not from the office of OP situated at Janpath Road, Connaught Place. It is, however, stated by the counsel for complainant during arguments that the claim was filed at Pitampura office of the OP from where the policy was taken.

        In these facts of the case, it is clear that neither the place of cause of action i.e. repudiation letter of claim nor the OPs office from where the policy was taken by complainant fall under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, we are of the considered view that the complaint does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act reads as below:-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs]. (not relevant as it deals with the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction).

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 passed following orders:

“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) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) 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 sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

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

 

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

In view of above facts and legal position, we are of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is directed to be returned to the complainant with annexures against acknowledgment to file it before competent Forum in accordance with law and a copy be retained in records.

            This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in).

A copy of this order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 06.03.2017

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                             (H M VYAS)                                          (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                               MEMBER                                                    MEMBER