Delhi

New Delhi

CC/576/2017

Rahul Panwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

17 Jan 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./576/2017                                       Dated:

 

In the matter of:

RAHUL SINGH PANWAR

S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh Panwar

R/o F2/601, Shalimar Garden, Extension – 1

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.                           ……..COMPLAINANT

 

    

 

VERSUS

 

 

HDFC ERGO General insurance company limited

14, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

   ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

NIPUR CHANDNA - MEMBER

                  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR-06-AB-3111  and the same was insured with the OP Insurance Co. vide policy bearing no. 2311 2014 5458 1600 000 w.e.f 15.07.2016 to 14.07.2016. It is alleged by the complainant that on 07.07.2017 at around 11.30 P.M. his car  hit to a road side stone and toppled. It is further stated by the complainant that due to night, he was unable to arrange a towing van and his mobile phone was also switched off due to insufficient battery, he left the car on the spot. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 08.07.2017 when he reached at the spot to lift the car, he found that the same was missing from the spot, and as such he lodged a complaint on 100 number, The police official suggested the complainant to search the vehicle at nearby police station, and as such he visited P.S. Nihal Vihar, and found his vehicle. It is further alleged by the complainant that he informed the opposite party regarding the alleged incident on 08.07.2017. It is further alleged by the complainant that he submit all the documents to the OP Insurance Company as and when demanded by it and also approached the Insurance Ombudsaman, to get his claim settled but all in vain . Complainant therefore approached this forum for redressal of his grievance.      

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the counsel for complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturaba Gandi Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The copy of the policy in question filed by the complainant along with his complaint shows that the policy was issued from the Noida office of the OP CO., the letter dt. 15.09.2017 issued by OP Insurance Company repudiating the claim of the complainant was issued from the Mumbai office of the OP Company. The copy of the Policy filed along with the complaint clearly shows that the policy was not issued from the office of the OP falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum .

Before adverting to the disposal of this case, it is expedient to quote the relevant provision in their respect and the same is as follows :-

Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1. Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .
2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limit fo 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 or voluntarily resides or ( carries on business or has a branch office or ) personally work 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 the business or has a branch office ), or personally work for  gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have a branch office ) , or personally work for gain, as case may be , acquiesce in such institution, or

 

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

                  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.”

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.

 

From the foregoing facts it is clear that neither the cause of action nor the policy was taken from place located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

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 Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement (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 on  17/01/2018                             

 

                 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                            PRESIDENT

 

                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                        MEMBER                                                 MEMBER