BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  375 of 2014

Date of Institution: 14.07.2014

Date of Decision:3.12.2015

Jasbir Singh S/o Dara Singh R/o Village Bhaini Lidhar, PO Majitha, District Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,D.O.I, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Principal Officer
2. Globe Auto Parts Regd.authorized main dealer for Punjab Ashok Leyland Ltd., Paragpur, G.T. Road, Jalandhar & Manawala,G.T.Road, Amritsar through its Prop. Ramandeep Singh Sethi

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Kultar Singh,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party No.1       : Sh. S.K.Davessar,Advocate

               For the opposite party No.2        : Ex.parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Jasbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got financed truck bearing registration No. PB-02-BS-9851 from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company and insured with the opposite party No.1 vide cover note No. 401301564547 for the period from 23.3.2013 to 22.3.2014. According to the complainant on 4.10.2013 the area of NH-2 from Varanasi to Ramnagar,  truck No. UP-25-AT-9023 and other truck No. UP-78-BT-8935 were struck with each other  and accident had taken place . The truck of the complainant was also going on that road and it was also struck into  with the aforesaid trucks and due to which the truck was totally damaged. Complainant lodged FIR No. 480/13 regarding the said accident and the truck was taken to opposite party No.2 for its repair. Complainant has alleged that opposite party No.2 charged Rs. 25000/- on 5.11.2013 against receipt No. 2889, Rs. 15000/- on 25.11.2013 against receipt No. 2106 and thus total Rs. 40000/- were spent by the complainant on the repair of the truck. Complainant has further alleged that he also spent Rs. 80000/- for taking his truck from UP to opposite party No.2 and Rs. 20000/- were spent for going to Jalandhar, Rs. 2000/- were spent for lodging report in UP  and Rs. 40000/- on other misc. expenses. Since the said truck was insured with opposite party No.1, as such complainant lodged claim with opposite party No.1. But the opposite party No.1 refused to pay the insurance claim to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of the truck . Compensation of Rs. 13 lacs alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the insurance policy in question was issued by the Insurance company at Jalandhar, the alleged accident also took place at National Highway, Dafi, Lanka, Varanasi and as such no part of cause of action has arisen at Amritsar. The intimation regarding the alleged accident of vehicle in question was given by the complainant vide intimation letter dated 7.11.2013 to the Insurance company at Jalandhar,whereas the alleged accident took place on 4.10.2013. It was submitted that complainant has failed to furnish and submit repair bills/cash memos inspite of various letters dated 9.5.2014 and 22.5.2014. Even the complainant was requested to get the vehicle re-inspected from M/s. Leo Alex Surveyors for proceeding in the matter, but to no avail. It was further submitted that in this case spot survey report dated 11.10.2013 was submitted by Sh. Vinod Kumar Pathak,  surveyor and report was submitted by Leo Alex Surveyor , who assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 2,66,272/- which was recommended  by the surveyor to the opposite party but the opposite party is under obligation to process the claim   after getting bills/cash memos of repair from the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Initially opposite party No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.9.2014 but later on Sh.Mandeep Singh Arora and Danish Bansal,Adv. Appeared  and they were allowed to join the proceedings at that stage. Thereafter opposite party No.2 did not lead any evidence  and again was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.3.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla Ex.OP1/1, affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar Pathak,Surveyor  Ex.OP1/2, affidavit of Rajeshwar Nath Ex.OP1/3 aloangwith documents Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/12.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his truck bearing registration No. PB-02-BS-9851 insured with opposite party No.1 at Jalandhar vide cover note No. 401301564547 Ex.C-12 for the period from 23.3.2013 to 22.3.2014. On 4.10.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident at about 2.00 a.m. on 4.10.20134 in the area of National Highway II, a truck bearing No. UP-25-AT-9023 and another truck No. UP-78-BT-8935 struck with each other . The truck of the complainant bearing No. PB-02-BS-9851 also struck into the aforesaid trucks, as a result of which truck of the complainant was badly damaged. FIR No. 480 of 2013 dated 5.10.2013 was registered at P.S. Varanasi. Copy of FIR is Ex.C-11. The truck was taken to opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar for its repair, who charged Rs. 25000/-   vide receipt Ex.C-8 dated 5.11.2013 and Rs. 15000/- vide receipt dated 25.11.2013 Ex.C-9. The complainant further submitted that he spent Rs. 80000/- for taking his truck from UP to opposite party No.2, Rs. 20000/- for going to Jalandhar, Rs. 2000/- for lodging report in UP and Rs. 40000/- on other misc. expenses. Opposite party No.1 was informed regarding the accident and about the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant as it was totally damaged as per technical examination report Ex.C-15. But no claim was paid by opposite party No.1 despite repeated requests made by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that this Forum  has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because the insurance policy in question was issued by the office of Insurance company at Jalandhar as per policy Ex.OP1/4 as is also evident from the cover note produced by the complainant Ex.C-12. Intimation regarding accident was also given by the complainant to the office of the Insurance company at Jalandhar. The claim, if any lodged by the complainant with the opposite party No.1 was also lodged at the office of Insurance company at Jalandhar. The accident took place at National Highway Dafi, Lanka, Varanasi (UP), as such no part of cause of action has ever arisen at Amritsar. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. Further, the accident took place on 4.10.2013 and the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 office at Jalandhar on 7.11.2013 vide claim intimation Ex.OP1/5 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than one month which is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP1/4 because as per condition No.1 the insured is bound to give notice in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage to the insured vehicle. Not only this the opposite party , Jalandhar office appointed surveyor M/s. Leo Alex Surveyors, who submitted their report Ex.OP1/12 and assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 2,66,272/- less salvage value Rs. 8500/-. The complainant did not got the vehicle repaired. The complainant was written letters dated 9.5.2014 Ex.OP1/9 and letter dated 22.5.2014 Ex.OP1/10 to submit the repair bills, but the complainant did not submit the repair bills and as such the opposite party was justified in not making the payment of the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance company qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant got his vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. PB-02-BS-9851 insured with the National Insurance company at Jalandhar vide policy Ex.OP1/4, cover note Ex.C-12 produced by the complainant himself . As per complainant’s version the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.10.2013 at Varanasi in UP. The said vehicle was brought from UP to opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar i.e.  service station at Paragpur,G.T.Road, Jalandhar. The intimation regarding accident of the vehicle was also given by the complainant through claim intimation Ex.OP1/5 dated 7.11.2013 to the National Insurance company , Branch III, B.M.C.Chowk, Jalandhar. Even the complainant also gave legal notice regarding non settlement of his claim by the National Insurance company, to the National Insurance  Company, Branch III, B.M.C.Chowk, Jalandhar City, Ex.OP1/6 and reply to the notice was also given by the opposite party from Jalandhar which is Ex.OP1/7 dated 21.6.2014 through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.OP1/8. Even the entire correspondence by the complainant was made with the opposite party at Jalandhar office as is evident from letters dated 9.5.2014 Ex.OP1/9 and letter dated 22.5.2014 Ex.OP1/10. Even the complainant after accident of the insured vehicle in question in UP brought the said vehicle for repairs at the service station of opposite party No.2 situated at Paragpur, G.T.Road, Jalandhar. So the entire cause of action accrued to the complainant at Jalandhar and no part of the cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant at Amritsar. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., IV(2009)CPJ 40 (SC) that where no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh, simply that there is branch office of the opposite party at Chandigarh, Consumer Commission Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Lasa Footwear IV (2012) CPJ 821 (NC).

10.     Consequently we hold that this Forum at Amritsar has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable at District Consumer  Forum, Amritsar and the same is ordered to be  returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Forum/Court, having territorial jurisdiction. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

3.12.2015                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member