Delhi

New Delhi

CC/4/2020

P.D Polyster Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

10 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

       I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.04/2020                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

             M/s P.D. Polyster Pvt. Ltd.,

             Floor-1 GI-9, Industrial Area,

             G.T.Karnal Road, Azadpur,

            New Delhi-33.

                                         ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1.   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

New India Assurance,

64, Janpath, New Delhi, Central,

New Delhi-01.

(BRANCH office).

 

2. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.,

1, Nelso n Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70.

                                                                                                                                                          ….........OPPOSITE PARTES

 

PRESIDENT-ARUN KUMAR ARYA

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UK/6/TMP/2019/4191.  The said vehicle was insured with OP-1 through its agent OP-2 vide policy bearing No.98000031190908019796 dt. 19.7.2019 and the I.D. value of the vehicle was Rs.7,62,347/-. The terms and conditions of the policy were never supplied to the complainant.   On 18.8.2019 at around 6.15 a.m., the vehicle in question was stolen from Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. An FIR bearing No.029112  was lodged  on 19.8.2019 and  OP-1 was also informed about the theft of vehicle, The complainant lodged a claim along with all the required documents with OPs and requested a claim of Rs.7,62,347/-.   OP-1 vide letter dt. 9.11.2019 repudiated the claim of the complainant by ostensibly relying on condition no.5 of the policy.  The complainant sent a legal notice  to the OP to re-consider his claim but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.         Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that office of OP-1 is situated at Janpath, New Delhi,  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

3.         In the present case, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from Rudrapur  District U.S. Nagar,  which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. The policy was issued from Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which also  does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. The claim in question was repudiated from Lawrence Road, Delhi office of the OP. The complainant has failed to place on any document which proves that  vehicle in question was purchased  or policy was issued  from the office of the OP-1 situated  at Janpath, 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 the 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.         Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint 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.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District 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 10/02/2020

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                 (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                  MEMBER