Delhi

New Delhi

CC/396/2018

Paras Lubricants Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.396/2018                                Dated:

In the matter of:

                M/s Paras Lubricants Ltd.,

               Having its Head/Registered office at

               311-312, Manglam Paradise,

              Plot No.8, Manglam Place,

               Sec.3, Rohini, Delhi-85

            Through its Directors/Authorised Signatory.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

        M/s HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        14^th. Ground Floorm Amandeep Building,

        Kasturba Gandhi Marg,,

        New Delhi-110001.

 

     Having Registered/Corporate office at:

 

    1^st Floor, HDFC House,

      165-166, Bckbay, Reclamation,

       H.T. Parekh Marg, Church Gate,

        Mumbai-400020.

Opposite Party.

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP  under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant Company is registered owner of Hyundai car  bearing Registration No.DL-09-CAE-5399 duly insured with OP under “Private Car Comprehensive Policy” vide policy  No.2311201992409200000 w.e.f. 17.11. 2017  to midnight of 16.11.2018 for Insured’s Declared Value Rs.9,45,000/-.  It is alleged that the complainant Co. had paid the total premium of Rs.28,348/- on 15.11.2017  It is further alleged that on 13.3.2018, the said vehicle was used by the Director of Complainant Co. alongwith his driver for Delhi to Kosi Kalan, Mathura and when they were coming back to Delhi  and reached near Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura, the said driver stopped the car for urinal purpose.  However, the Director of complainant was sitting in the car; suddenly a car came from wrong side and hit the complainant’s car.  Due to said impact, the Director moved back the said car and in the meantime, a bus had also bluntly hit the said car. As a result, the alleged vehicle got badly damaged and the Director of the complainant had also badly injured. 

2.     It is submitted that the complainant Co. had sent the accidental car to the authorized service centre at Gurugram, Haryana. The intimation of the accident was given to the OP by the service centre and lodged the claim in this regard.  After lodging the claim, OP appointed an Investigating agency namely  M/s Eminent Support Services Pvt. Ltd. as Surveyor, who  made his visit at the house of Director of complainant and also conducted the spot survey of accidental car.   It is further alleged that the complainant had  provided  all the required documents to the OP for settling the claim but OP had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 12.4.2018 on the ground that the complainant Co. have misrepresented the cause of loss. It is submitted that vide letter dated 20.6.2018, the complainant requested the OP to provide the ground on which they have cancelled the claim but OP neither provide the grounds of cancellation of the claim  nor sent any response to the said letter to the complainant Co.  Although OP had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.11,006/ to the complainant Co. without giving any reasons  but complainant Co. did not present the said cheque and the same is still lying with its.  It is alleged that the complainant Co. had sent several letters to the OP to settle its genuine claim but nothing has been done by the OP, hence this complaint.

2.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It was submitted by the complainant Co. that office of OP is situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, who works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.     In the present case, the complainant Co. has  placed on record the policy documents which shows that the policy issuing office is situated at Mumbai.  The cause of action i.e. accident of the alleged vehicle took place at Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the above noted order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5.     As the alleged policy was issued from Mumbai Office and the accident of the alleged vehicle took place at Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura, constituting the cause of action.  So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Mumbai and Mathura would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  

7.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 19/11/2018.

 

                                           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                   PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                            (H M VYAS)

                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER