BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Wednesday the 10^th day of August, 2011

C.C.No.127/2010

Between:

Dr.C.V.Lavanya, W/o. Dr.V.Ramesh,

H.No.43/53, Narasingarao Pet, Kurnool-518 004.                             

               …Complainant

                                        -Vs-

1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Managing Director,

    GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,PUNE-411 006.

2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Manager, Claims Department,

Second Floor, Far East Plaza, Main Road, Opp.Malik Cars, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Incharge,

    Alankar Plaza,         Park Road,         Kurnool-518 002, ANDHRA PRADESH.                    

           …Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 3 and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.2 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                        ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

                                           C.C. No. 127/2010

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-

1. To pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.50,113/- with interest @ 24% per annum;

(b)    To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the compensation;

(c)    To pay costs of the complaint;

                                        And

1. To pass any other order or orders that are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 29-12-2009 the complainant purchased Maruti/Wagon–R vehicle in Hyderabad and it was insured with opposite parties on the same day under the policy bearing No.BA5140676.  The period of the policy is from 03-01-2010 to 02-01-2011.  The Register Number of the car is AP 21 AA 610.  On 01-01-2010 the complainant and his family members were going to Kadapa in the car when the vehicle reached Ravulapallu Cheruvu near Patimeedapalli Village one auto came in opposite direction.  When the driver of the complainant applied sudden break, the car of the complainant skidded to right side and turtiled up side.  As a result the car of the complainant was damaged.  The driver of the car lodged a complaint with Mydukur Rural Inspector of Police.  The Police Registered a case Under Section 184 (b) of MV Act and imposed a fine amount of Rs.300/-.  The complainant informed about the accident to opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 appointed an investigator and loss assessor.  The investigator after inspecting the vehicle submitted his report.  The complainant got his vehicle repaired by M/s Sivaji Motors in Kadapa by spending Rs.87,477/-.  The cash bills issued by M/s Sivaji Motors were submitted to the surveyor.  Surprisingly the complainant received a cheque for Rs.37,364/- through opposite party No.3.  The complainant reluctantly took the said cheque under protest.  The complainant is entitled for the balance amount of Rs.50,113/- (87,477 – 37,364 = 50,113/-).  On 12-04-2010 the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties demanding to pay the balance of amount.  Opposite party No.2 gave a reply denying the allegations in the notice.  The surveyor wrongly assessed the loss.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3.  It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.2 that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant’s vehicle bearing No.AP 21 AA 610 was insured under the policy No.BA5140676.   The policy was in force from 03-01-2010 to 02-01-2011.  The opposite parties have no knowledge about the alleged accident of the complainant’s car on 01-01-2010.  On receiving the intimation about the accident a licenced independent surveyor was appointed to assess the loss.  The surveyor after inspecting the complainant’s car submitted his report.  The surveyor assessed the loss in the presence of the complainant.  The complainant accepted the cheque for Rs.37,364/- and executed discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of her claim.  The complainant did not spend Rs.87,477/- for repairs of her car.  The complainant is estopped from claiming more amount than assessed by the surveyor.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The policy was issued by opposite party No.2 office situated at Hyderabad.  The head office of opposite party No.2 is situated at Pune.  Opposite party No.3 no why concerned in issuing the policy.  The accident occurred in Kadapa District.   This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and 3^rd party affidavit of M.B.Sivaji Rao are filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the Maruti/Wagon–R car bearing No.AP 21 AA 610 was insured with opposite party No.2 under Ex.B1 policy.  There is clear mention in Ex.B1 that the complainant is the insured under the policy.  The policy was in force from 03-01-2010 to 02-01-2011.  It is the case of the complainant that her vehicle met with an accident on 10-01-2010 near Ravulapalli Cheruvu near Patimeedapalli Village.  To prove the same she filed Ex.A4 certificate issued by the Inspector of Police Mydukur Rural Circle.  In Ex.A4 it is mentioned that on 10-01-2010 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Ravulapalli Cheruvu near Patimeedapalli Village in Kadapa District.  Admittedly on intimation given by the complainant a surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.2.  The surveyor after inspecting the damaged vehicle filed his report Ex.B2 assessing net liability of the insurer at Rs.37,364 – 60 Ps.   Basing on the said report of the surveyor, the complainant was paid the said amount through a cheque.  The complainant received the cheque for Rs.37,364–60 Ps and issued Discharge Voucher Ex.B4.  It is the case of the complainant that he incurred an amount of Rs.87,477 – 37 Ps and that the surveyor wrongly assessed the net liability of the insurer at Rs.37.364/-.

8.     The complainant filed the present complaint against opposite parties claiming balance amount of Rs.50,113/-.  The main contention of the opposite parties is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  According to section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complaint can be instituted in a District Forum with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite parties voluntarily reside or carry on business or have a branch office or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.  Admittedly the complainant purchased vehicle at Hyderabad on 29-12-2009.  The complainant insured his vehicle with opposite party No.2.  Ex.B1 is the insurance policy issued by opposite party No.2.  The policy servicing office is at White House, Begumpet Hyderabad.  It is not the case of the complainant that the proposal for obtaining the policy was submitted at Kurnool.  According to the complainant the accident took place near Ravulapalli Cheruvu near Patimeedapalli Village in Kadapa District.  The cause of action arose in Kadapa District where the accident took place.  Opposite party No.2 carrying on its business in Hyderabad.  Opposite party No.2 office issued Ex.B1 policy in the name of the complainant.  Therefore the District Forum at Hyderabad or at Kadapa got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the Branch Office of opposite party No.1 is situated in Kurnool Town and that the District Forum Kurnool got jurisdiction.  Merely because the Branch Office of opposite party No.1 situated in Kurnool the District Consumer Forum Kurnool has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The expression Branch Office in the amended section would mean the Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen.  In the instant case the cause of action has arisen in Kadapa District where the accident took place.     It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant received the cheque for Rs.37,364/- from opposite party No.2 and complainant issued Ex.B4 Discharge Voucher on 10-01-2010.  In Ex.B4 there is no mention that Ex.B4 was executed in the office of opposite party No.3.  Merely because the complainant received cheque from opposite party No.3 it cannot be said that the part of cause of action has arisen in Kurnool Town where the Branch Office of opposite party No.1 situated.  For a cause of action arising in Kadapa District, the District Consumer Forum Kadapa will have jurisdiction.  The complainant instead of filling the present complaint before the District Forum Hyderabad or District Consumer Forum Kadapa wrongly filed the present complaint in this Forum.  This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

 9.    In result, the complaint shall be returned to the complainant for presentation in proper Forum.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of August, 2011.

         Sd/-                                              Sd/-                               Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER           

               APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                  For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Certificate cum policy schedule bearing

No.BA5140676 dated 29-12-2009.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Driving Licence of the complainant.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Driving Licence No.DLEAPO21205832004

dated 14-12-2004.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Certificate issued by Circle Inspector of

Police Mydukur Rural Police dated 10-01-2010.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Cash bill issued by M/S. Sivaji Motors

                Kadapa bearing 2039 to 2041 for Rs.46,427/-

dated 05-03-2010.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Cash bill issued by M/S. Sivaji Motors

Kadapa bearing 2045 to 2048 for Rs.41,050/-

dated 05-03-2010.

Ex.A7                Office copy of legal notice dated 12-04-2010

along with postal receipts (3).

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Insurance Policy No.OG-10-1801-1801-

                00043252 dated 02-01-2010.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Final Motor Survey Report

dated 16-03-2010.

Ex.B3                Reply Notice dated 08-05-2010.

Ex.B4        Claim Discharge cum satisfaction voucher

dated 10-01-2010.

         Sd/-                                              Sd/-                               Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :