Delhi

New Delhi

CC/173/2019

SH. VIJIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.173/2019                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Vijit Kumar

S/o Sh. Hardwari Lal,

R/o H.No.E-30,

Ground Floor, Preet Vihar,

Delhi-110092.                        

                                                     ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

The Managing Director/Chairman,

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

14, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

1.  

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is  that  the  complainant is the policy holder of OP Insurance Co.  vide policy bearing No.2311100260637600004.  On 25.11.2018, the vehicle in question got stolen from Preet Vihar, Delhi.   Immediately the FIR was registered with P.S.  e-Police Station, Preet Vihar.  The intimation of the same was given to OP Insurance Co. on 26.11.2018.  The OP Insurance Co. vide its letter dt. 17.12.2018, repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the present complaint.

2.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

3.     The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from the Mumbai office of the OP Co., the vehicle was stolen from Preet Vihar, Delhi.  The claim of complainant was repudiated from the Mumbai Office of the OP Co. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the alleged cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the policy issued office of OP  nor the cause of action arose falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

      On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the 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.”

 

4.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum 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 in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). 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 on21/08/2019.

 

 

         (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                  PRESIDENT

                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER