Delhi

New Delhi

CC/288/2021

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

 

04.01.2022

CC/288/2021

Heard Through Video Conferencing

Pr. Ms. Stuti jain, Counsel for the Complainant

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (in short CP Act). Briefly stated of the facts of the complaint are that the vehicle of Complainant bearingDL. 1R TB 1667 (Maruti Wagon Rupees Green LXI) bearing engine no. 7745573 and colour superior white, was stolen on 19.07.2017 from DDA Flat Todapur, Delhi. Complainant lodged a complaint, pursuant to which FIR of theft was registered. It is further stated that the complainant also informed the insurance company/ opposite party (OP in short) about the theft. Insurance Company appointed its investigator. The police filed untraced report which was accepted by the Court.
2. It is also stated that the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP/Insurance Company to release the claim amount in favour of the IDBI Bank as the vehicle was hypothecated to the IDBI Bank in the name of the Complainant. The OP however rejected the claim. It is further stated that the Complainant works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
3. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and perused the documents filed.
4. Section 34 of the CP Act which relates to jurisdiction of District Commission, is as follows:

34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of 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, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works 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 business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or,

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain. 

5.       We are of the view that the Complainant has not filed any authentic proof to show that he works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The OP also neither has its office nor resides within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Cause of action has also not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

6.       In view thereof the complaint is returned to the Complainant, as we are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint be returned to the Complainant along with annexure/documents by retaining a copy of the same for records, with liberty to the Complainant to file the same before the Competent Commission, as per the Law. The particulars of the Complainant are as follows:

          Date of presentation of complaint                             :        24.12.2021

          Date of Return of complaint                            :        04.01.2022

          Name of Ld. Counsel for the Complainant         :        Stuti Jain

          Court Fee paid                                               :        Rs. 400/-

        Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. File be consigned to record room.

         Announced in Open Commission on 04.01.2022

 

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER