Haryana

StateCommission

A/710/2015

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    710 of 2015

Date of Institution:    31.08.2015

Date of Decision :     23.02.2017

 

Cholamandalam Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.60, Usha Road, near Metro Pillar-81, New Delhi through its General Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Narender s/o Sh. Kadam Singh, Resident of Village Mehrana, Pana Kilohar, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      IndusInd Bank Limited, near Hero Honda Show Room, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                  

Argued by:          Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri R.S. Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.2 has filed the present appeal against the order dated May 1^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Narender-complainant/respondent No.1 was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to the complainant, being the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-5349, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of recovery and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     The complainant purchased truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-5349 after obtaining loan from IndusInd Bank Limited (for short ‘the Bank’)-opposite Party No.1.  After purchase, the truck vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company vide cover note No.6037047 (Exhibit C-10) for the period March 11^th, 2008 to March 10^th, 2009. The premium amount was paid from the loan account of the complainant. The truck was stolen on January 1^st, 2009 in the area of Police Station Manjhola, District Muradabad (U.P.) First Information Report (FIR) No.37 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in Police Station Manjhola. The Insurance Company was also informed. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-2) was submitted by the Police. As per version of the complainant, he could not make the payment of instalments of the loan amount and ultimately the truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-4694 owned by Satpal-Guarantor was taken into possession by the opposite party No.1/Bank. Thereafter, remaining loan amount was paid by the complainant.

3.                The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not make payment of the insured amount despite relevant documents were submitted by the complainant and legal notices dated 7^th December, 2010 and 16^th December, 2010 were issued to the Insurance Company. The complainant has prayed to direct the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.12,50,000/-, that is, the IDV of the truck alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

4.                  The Opposite Party No.1 – IndusInd Bank Limited in its written version has taken plea that it has no role to play in settlement of the claim. It is also pleaded that the complainant has committed default in making payment of instalments of the loan amount.

5.                The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.2 has not denied specifically that the truck was stolen and FIR was lodged in this regard at Police Station Manjhola. However, it is pleaded that no intimation regarding the alleged incident was given to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has also taken plea that the District Forum, Rohtak has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the cover note was issued at Karnal.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the record.

7.                During the course of arguments, it was common case of both the parties that the complainant-Narender  became owner of truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-5349 and that the truck was financed by the Bank/opposite party No.1. There is also no controversy of any type that the truck in question was insured with the Insurance Company-opposite party No.2 for the period March 11^th, 2008 to March 10^th, 2009.

8.                It was told by both the parties that the total amount awarded vide order dated May 1^st, 2015 by the District Forum, including interest etc., has been paid to the complainant during execution proceedings. In case the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed, the total claim of the complainant shall stand fully satisfied but if it is allowed, necessary directions can be issued for refund of the amount already paid.

9.                It is evident from the statement of account (Exhibit R-2) that the premium amount of Rs.40,000/- regarding providing insurance was deducted by the bank/opposite party No.1  from the loan account of the complainant at Rohtak. As per version of the complainant, the insured truck was stolen on January 1^st, 2009 in the area of Police Station Manjhola, District Muradabad (U.P.) and FIR No.37 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in this regard. Ultimately untraced report (Exhibit C-2) was submitted by the Police. In this way, it stands established that the truck belonging to the complainant was insured after making payment of the premium amount for the period mentioned above and during the insured period, theft of the truck was committed at a place in District Muradabad (U.P.) and could not be traced.

10.              The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company mainly because no intimation regarding theft of the truck was given to the Insurance Company; that there was un-necessary delay in lodging the FIR and that the District Forum at Rohtak has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the insurance policy was issued from the office of the Insurance Company at Karnal. 

11.              After going through the pleadings and the documents on the record, it is clear that the insured truck was stolen on January 01^st, 2009 in the area of Police Station Manjhola, District Muradabad (U.P.). It is evident from the copy of FIR (Exhibit C-3) that it was lodged on January 19^th, 2009. It is mentioned in the FIR as well as copy of the complaint (Exhibit C-4) filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muradabad that the complainant informed the Police but the Police did not lodge FIR. Ultimately the complainant requested the Senior Superintendent of Police also on 04^th January, 2009 for lodging FIR. In the copy of criminal complaint (Exhibit C-4), it is mentioned that criminal complaint was filed by the complainant on 9^th March, 2009. The local Police had refused to lodge FIR and the complainant had to file a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ultimately, FIR was lodged on January 19^th, 2013 as per direction of the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this way, delay in lodging of FIR has been properly explained.

12.              Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because intimation was not sent to the Insurance Company immediately after the truck was stolen. In support, reference was made to condition No.1 of the policy (Exhibit RW2/C). The Insurance Company could not adduce any evidence in this regard. Keeping in mind these circumstances, the claim of the complainant cannot be declined on the grounds mentioned above.   

13.              The version of the Insurance Company-opposite party No.2 is that the District Forum, Rohtak had no jurisdiction to decide this complaint as head office of the Insurance Company is at Delhi and the insurance policy was issued from branch office at Karnal. For facilitation, Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, is reproduced below:-

“11.   Jurisdiction of the District Forum. — xxxxx…… 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum 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, actually and voluntarily 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 either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

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

14.              On a plain reading of Section 11 of the Act, 1986 it becomes clear that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 1986 can be instituted in a District Forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction any one of the three situations contemplated in the provision is shown to exist.  From the pleadings and documents on the file, there appears to be no controversy that the Insurance Policy was issued from the branch office of opposite party No.2 at Karnal; Head Office of the Insurance Company is situated at Delhi; the complainant is resident of a Village in Jhajjar District, Haryana and that the IndusInd Bank-Opposite Party No.1 was in existence at Rohtak when the Insurance Policy was obtained. Version of the complainant is that the branch office of the Insurance Company was at Rohtak and in fact the Insurance Policy was provided at the instance of IndusInd Bank Limited with whom the truck was financed. It is evident from the Statement of Account, regarding the loan amount of the complainant (Exhibit R-2) that the premium amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the bank from the loan account of the complainant. In this way, it stands proved that the payment of the premium amount was made by the IndusInd Bank-opposite party No.1 at Rohtak on behalf of insured.  

15.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that although the branch office of the Insurance Company was at Rohtak also at that time but even if it is presumed that there exists no branch of the Insurance Company at Rohtak, even then the District Forum, Rohtak has jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

16.              The version of the complainant finds support from case laws of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1941 of 2016, Managing Director Club 7 Holidays Limited versus Prabir Kumar Maitra, decided on 22^nd November, 2016 and First Appeal No.225 of 2013, Ms. Melanie Das vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 13^th January, 2014.

17.              As per facts of Managing Director Club 7 Holidays Limited versus Prabir Kumar Maitra’s case (Supra), the complainant booked a foreign tour to Europe starting from April 12^th, 2014. Receipt regarding payment amount of Rs.10,000/- was issued at Kolkata. However, most of the payments were made through cheques drawn at the place of residence of complainant at Nadia. The Opposite Party did not provide surety and security during tour and indulged in unfair trade practice. It was held that the District Forum Nadia had jurisdiction to decide the complaint as cause of action partly arose at that place.

18.              In Ms. Melanie Das vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited’s case (Supra), the appellant-complainant was provided Single Trip Secure Class Silver Policy from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited-opposite party. In the year 2011, she took one such policy from the Regional Office of the Insurance Company at Gurgaon. The appellant took treatment during her stay in United States of America. The premium of the Insurance Policy was paid through cheque on March 01^st, 2011 at Gurgaon. Corporate Accidents and Health claims department of the Insurance Company exists at Chennai; the appellant had submitted her claim with the Insurance Company at their Chennai office and the same was repudiated. It was held that as payment of the premium amount was paid at Gurgaon (Haryana) through cheque, therefore, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana has jurisdiction to decide the complaint as cause of action partly arose at Gurgaon.

19.              Apart from it, decisions of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.347 of 2015, Spicejet Limited vs. Ranju Aery, decided on December 29^th, 2015 and Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.1241 of 2013, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Kuldeep Jindal, decided on February 24^th, 2015 also support the version of the complainant. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are almost similar to the facts and circumstances of the above cited cases.

20.              Apart from it, in M/s Harit Polytech Private Limited Versus M/s Colt Cables Private Limited and another, FAO No.48 of 2016, decided on September 22^nd, 2016 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the findings were also given in the same situation as in the present complaint case.

21.              As per facts of the case in hand, the head office of the Insurance Company-Opposite Party No2 exists in Delhi; the Insurance Policy was issued from branch office of the Insurance Company situated at Karnal but the insurance premium amount was paid by the IndusInd Bank-Opposite Party No.1 from the bank loan account of the complainant at Rohtak.  It does not reflect from the record that the complainant himself had given instructions in writing to the IndusInd Bank-opposite party No.1 to make payment of the premium amount regarding insurance policy. It appears that the IndusInd Bank itself got provided the insurance policy to secure payment of the loan amount advanced by it to the complainant. In this situation, case law Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) is also not of much help to the Insurance Company.  In this case even if findings are given that branch office of the Insurance Company was not in existence at Rohtak, even then finding can be given that the cause of action partly arose at Rohtak as the premium amount was paid by the IndusInd Bank/financer on behalf of the complainant at Rohtak.

22.              As per view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh and Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, referred above, finding can be safely given that cause of action partly arose at Rohtak. In these circumstances, we feel no hesitation in holding that the District Forum, Rohtak has jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

23.              No other point was raised during the course of arguments.

24.              In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. The findings of the Learned District Forum regarding the relief granted to the complainant stands affirmed.

25.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 23.02.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL