Delhi

New Delhi

CC/70/2018

Shapt Professional Services Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

09 Apr 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/70/2018                                                                       Dated:

 In the matter of:-

Shapt Professional Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Smt. Sarita Aggarwal

3/91, Nehru Gali Vishvas Nagar, Shahdra

Delhi-110032                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Oriental Insurance company Ltd.

Through its general Manager

Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi-110002

 

2. Oriental Insurance company Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager

C/O Sh. Rohtas, Near SBPO

Main Rohtak Road, Bus Stand

Jhajjar, Haryana- 124103.…… Opposite Parties

 

 

PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

 

ORDER

M/S Shapt Professional Services Pvt Ltd. having its office at Vishvas Nagar, Shahdra Delhi -110032, has filed complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP-1 having its office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, and OP-2 having its office at Jhajjar, Haryana-124103. The complainant has alleged that it is a Professional Organization and owns  a car Ford Figo bearing registration no. DL4CAF9159  insured vide policy no. 26102/31/2016/2444, issued by OP-2 having its office at Jhajjar, Haryana. The said vehicle met with an accident on 06/12/2015 at Azad Pur, Delhi. OPs appointed a surveyor and loss assessor namely Shri Raj Kumar Singh, who after inspection of the vehicle assessed the loss. It is alleged that the surveyor permitted the complainant for getting his car repaired and the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 73,634/- for repair work and submitted the  bills to the surveyor of the OP. The complainant there after  reported to the OP, who again appointed surveyor for inspection. The car was again inspected on 02/01/2016 by the surveyor who assessed the loss of Rs. 40,000/-, whereas the complainant spent a sum of Rs.  73,634/-. It is further alleged that the OPs are just passing the time on one pretext or the other. The complainant has alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs by not making the payment of the amount spent and prayed as below:-

1. The OP may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of the of the policy in question i.e. Rs. 73,634/- alongwith interest @ 24% PA to the complainant immediately,
2. The OP may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony & pain.
3. The OP may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 33,000/- as cost of present complaint.
4. Any other or further order(s), which this Hon’ble Forum deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice.

The question of jurisdiction of this District Forum cropped up during the course of arguments on admission of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted by Sh. Nikhlesh Jain, AR that office of OP no. 1 is situated in Delhi, who works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter. He argued that Delhi is one district as held by Hon’ble State Commission in the matter titled as Singh’s Dental Hospital V/s Amrit Lal Dureja, decided on 31/10/2007, and confirmed by Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 01/02/2018 in WP(C) No. 11424/16, titled as Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.)  V/s Lieutenant Governor & Ors. It was submitted by Authorised representative of complainant that cause of action was continuing and subsisting against the OP’s due to non payment of claim amount. The complaint is within time and the amount claimed is under Rs. 20 Lacs. It is stated that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.

Before adverting to the facts of this complaint and the submission advanced by Sh. Nikhlesh Jain, AR, it shal be expedient to discuss the observations made by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in paras 5&6 of the Judgement in WP(C) No. 11424/16, which is as follows. 

 “It cannot be denied that judicial discipline mandates that the District Forum shall strictly abide by the decisions of the State Commission, which bind their consideration.

In view thereof, all District Forum shall ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission in their decisions.”

           

In view of order of Hon’ble High Court dated 01/02/2018, it is clear that the District Forums are required to ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission in their decisions. Nonetheless, this Forum is bound by the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission & Hon’ble State Commission.

Very recently, the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi In Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn, dated 17/10/2017 in F.A. No. 488/2017, has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and dealt with the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. While passing the judgment Hon’ble  State Commission considered all the previous judgements passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction including the judgement cited by Hon’ble High Court, Delhi (i.e.) RP No. 07/18 titled as Singh’s Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, FA 216/12 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath Vs. The Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other decision in the case the Sardar Saranjeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181. It is pertinent to mentioned here that Singh’s Dental Hospital case was decided on 31/10/2007, whereas Prem Joshi’s case was decided on 17/10/2017 after 10 years.

On the point  of Delhi being on district, after considering all above noted judgements, the Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case  observed as under in the following paras:-

7.    “The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area.  Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.

8.     Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos.  If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle. 

9.   Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012.  The  said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12.  National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons.  On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of Delhi was a matter of great public importance.  Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification.  Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance.  National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit.  Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.

10.The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit.  It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order.  On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.

11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution.  But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction.  The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.”

In view of the above discussion, this Forum is bound by the principles laid down recently by Hon’ble State Commission in  Prem Joshi’s case holding the binding effect of  notifications issued by order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi under the provision of Rule 4 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 in respect to the allocation of business amongst the District Forums framed under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Even the facts of Dental Hospital’s case referred by Hon’ble High Court in its decision dated 01/02/2018 are distinct from the present case. In Dental’s Case, Ld. District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction over this case but decided the complaint on merit after hearing the parties finally. It was only in the revision petition, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised, thereupon, State Commission in the order dated 31/10/2007, has observed that all the District Forums are presided by a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge and since every District Forum is headed by such person, therefore any decision taken by any District Forum irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum cannot be set aside or held invalid. So, it is clarified that the present case has been heard on the point of admission of complaint at its very threshold u/s 12(3) of CP Act, 1986 and stands on different footing.

Thus, it becomes clear that District Forums are duly governed by the territorial jurisdiction as per Consumer Protection Act  Rules, and Regulation made there under and guided by the principles laid down by superior Fora and Courts.

Even otherwise, in the instant case admittedly the policy was taken from Jhajjar, Haryana  and the insurance claim obviously fall within their domain in Haryana and as such is directly covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in the case of Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 1560/2004 decided on 20/10/2009 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“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) the 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.” 

      Thus, for the purposes of the territorial jurisdiction both the branch office and the cause of action partly or fully should co-exist within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to attract its jurisdiction in the light of Sonic Surgical’s case (SUPRA). In the said judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the concept of cause of action refer to the decision in ONGC’s case reported as 1994 AIR SCW 3287 and excerpted as :-

"It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned”          

 

As the insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident was taken from Jhajjar, Haryana, which also does not fall within the territory. The offices of the both the opposite parties arrayed in the complaint also do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi of the Police Station notified by Lt. governor for business of the work of this Forum as mentioned above. The alleged accident dated 06/12/2015 of this vehicle took place at Azad Pur, Delhi, so no cause of action accrued in favour of claimant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Even for the sake of arguments it is presumed that complainant can file its complaint in the District Forum of his choice still the fact remains that the complainant is having its office at Shahadra, East Delhi and two District Forums, one at Nandnagri and second at Saini Enclave are situated near to the address of complainant. Despite this, complainant chose a distant Forum at New Delhi which appears to be a sort of Bench hunting as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical’s case (SUPRA).   

 

Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of principle laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in the recent Prem Joshi’s case (SUPRA) and the legal position discussed above. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the competent 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. 

Announced in open Forum on  09/04/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                           (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                                      MEMBER