Delhi

New Delhi

CC/407/2018

KVR Inforsys Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.RB/407/2018                                                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

M/s KVR  Infosys Pvt. Ltd.,

C/o W-29, Okhla Industrial Area Ph-II,

New Delhi-20.

Through, Mr. Ajay Goel, Executive Director

        ……..Complainant

VERSUS

The Cholamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. Ltd.,

9^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2^nd Address- Dare House, 2^nd Floor,

No.2, NSC, Bose Road, Chennai-600001, India

 

Opposite party

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

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’s vehicle No. DL 7CJ3301  was insured with vide its policy bearing No.MPC-00176940-000-00 w.e.f. 25.7.2008  to 24.7.2009.  It is alleged by the complainant that on  the intervening night of 24/25.8.2008 , the said  vehicle got theft .  In the morning of 25.8.2008, the theft was noticed and accordingly an FIR bearing No.362 dated 26.8.2009 was lodged u/s 379 of IPC with P.S. Krishan Nagar, East Delhi, thereafter, on 27.8.2008, the complainant informed the OP through M/s Sunrise Hyundai Showroom regarding the theft and lodged a claim along with all the required documents with OP on 25.10.2008.  The OP vide letter dt. 22.1.2009 denied the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in intimation.  The complainant requested several time to the OP to re-consider his claim but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.    Complaint has been contested by the OP.  Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits and their written submissions respectively.

3.    The present complaint was already disposed off by our Ld. Predecessor Bench vide its order dt. 13.2.2012.  Being aggrieved by the order the complainant preferred an Appeal before Hon’ble State Commission vide FA No.502/2012.  The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dt. 27.11.2015 remanded back the present case to this District Forum for further proceeding in accordance with law.

4.    We heard the argument advanced at the bar. OP ha strongly challenged the issue of territorial jurisdiction, hence, needs to be decided at the first instance.  Perusal of the file shows that the policy in question was issued from the Noida Office of the OP Insurance Co., FIR was lodged at Police Station, Krishan Nagar, East Delhi and the claim was repudiated by Chennai office of OP. Hence, neither the office of the OP nor the cause of action i.e. repudiation of claim arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

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

 Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1.  

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the locallimit 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 , 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 Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the relevant order is as follows:

“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.

 

6.     In view of discussion and judgement cited above, we are of the considered view that neither the office of the OP nor the cause of action i.e. repudiation of claim arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present case.

7.     The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexures against receipt.  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 16/07/2019.

                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                               PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                      (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER