Delhi

New Delhi

CC/173/2020

Manisha Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2021

ORDER

 

 

                  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                   (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                               NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.173/2020                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Manisha Sharma,

W/o Late Pawan Sharma,

R/o 8, Naveentam Apartment,

Near East Rohini, Metro Station,

Sec.9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

                  

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Amandeep Building, 14, K.G.Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.           H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,

8-A, Milap Niketan, B.S.Z. Marg,

ITO, New Delhi-01.

 

                                                                                                                                                               ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

File taken up through Video Conferencing.

 

2.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming  a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  besides other relief

3.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that  office of OP is situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so this District Commission was competent to adjudicate the matter.

4.     In the present case, complainant is residing at Rohini  and  the policy was issued from the Andheri, Mumbai  office of the OP Co which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Further, incident was occurred i.e. vehicle in question forcibly dragged from the complainant at Jawalpur, Distt. Haridwar, Uttrakhand, which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. 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 OP at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the  territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

5.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court decided  on 20/10/2009  in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on18/01/2021.                 

 

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DR. R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER