Delhi

New Delhi

CC/175/2011

Ranu Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 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.175/2011                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Renu Gupta,

W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,

R/o A-25, Shastri Nagar,

Delhi-52.

                          

                                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. New India Assurance  Co. Ltd.,

Through its Dy. General Manager,.

Delhi Regional Office-1,

Level-5, Tower Building,

Connaught Place, New Delhi.

 

2. New India Assurance  Co. Ltd.,

Through its Divisional Manager,

7255, Prem Nagar, Shakti  Nagar Chowk,

Delhi-07.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs. The gist of the complaint is  that  the  complainant was the policy holder of the OP Insurance Co. vide policy bearing No.311600/42/08/01/00000717 w.e.f. 10.12.2008 to 9.12.2009.  As per the cover note of the policy the policy holder is entitled to get the 1% of sum insured subject to the maximum limit of 100 weeks in case the injured person become temporarily disabled from undertaking any work as a result of accident. On  15.6.2009, the complainant slipped  in her bathroom, as a result of which, she suffered injury in her leg which was declared as fracture after getting x-ray report from the Lab.  As per the doctor advised she was remained confined to be rest for a period of 15.6.2009 to 14.12.2009.   The intimation of the injury sustained by the complainant  was given to the OP on 21.6.09 and thereafter on  9.9.2009, 2.12.2009 and 7.12.2009. After repeated follow-up the OP-2 informed the complainant that she was entitled for a sum of Rs.12,000/- instead of total claim of Rs.72,000/- Despite repeated requests, OP Co. failed to consider the genuine claim of Rs.72,000/-. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of her grievance.

2.    Complaint has been contested by the OPs jointly.  Counsel for OPs strongly challenged the territorial jurisdiction, hence, need to be decided first.

 

3.     It is submitted by the counsel for OPs that  policy was issued from the Shakti Nagar Office, Delhi of OP which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The cause of action i.e. the repudiation of the claim by the OP is also from the Shakti Nagar, Delhi office of OP Co. which also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any documents which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the OPs situated at Connaght Place, New Delhi, 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 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.     The complainant has placed on record, the copy of policy documents which clearly shows that the policy was issued from  the Shakti Nagar, Delhi Office of the OP Co.  So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Shakti Nagar, Delhi would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  

6.     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,  we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  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 05/12/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER