Haryana

Karnal

46/2010

Puran Chnad Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

national Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Subhodh Gupta

18 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint no.46 of 2010

                                                             Date of instt.: 25.1.2010

                                                               Date of decision  18.5.2016

 

Puran Chand Rice Mills, Railway Road, Taraori, District Karnal through its proprietor Sh.Naveen Gupta.

                                                                             …………..Complainant.      

                                                Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Railway Road, Karnal.                                                   

…………Opposite party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                     Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

 Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. Subodh Gupta Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party.

 

ORDER:

 

                      The opposite party filed application for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction of this forum, cause of action and not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation. It has been submitted that in the entire complaint it has not been made clear as to how this forum has got territorial jurisdiction or any cause of action or the part thereof had taken place at Karnal.  In fact, no cause of action accrued in the territorial jurisdiction of Karnal, because the policy was issued from Panipat, the accident took place at village Dudu on Jaipur Ajmer Road, intimation of the claim was given to Jaipur office, the surveyor report was sent to the Panipat office, all the communications were addressed to Panipat office and second surveyor M/s N.K.G. Engineering of Panipat was deputed by the Panipat office of National Insurance Company Ltd. for verification of value of consignment. Therefore, this forum at Karnal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present matter. It has further been pleaded that the incident statedly took place on 2.2.2008 and the complaint was filed after two years. No explanation for filing the complaint after expiry of the period of limitation has been furnished. Even no application for condonation of the delay has been filed. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

2.                The application has been resisted by the complainant by filing reply. It has been averred that the consignment was booked from Taraori and the policy in question was also issued at Taraori after duly inspection of the record. Moreover, intimation regarding dispatch of goods from Taraori was also sent from the office of complainant situated at Taraori. G.R. of the consignment was from Taraori to Kandla Dham. Therefore, this Forum at Karnal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter in dispute. The application has been filed just in order to delay the case as the opposite party failed to give any evidence despite last opportunity. The application is an abuse of the process of law.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

4.                The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured consignment of any quality of rice to be packed in different sizes of jute bags or polythene bags with the opposite party, vide open Marine Insurance Policy valid for the period of 20.1.2007 to 19.11.2008. On 30.1.2008, the consignment of 511 jute bags containing 45 Kgs each of Rice Sarbati Sella was dispatched, vide invoice no.5262  to M/s Mohmad Ahmed Bin Mehfooj, Saudi Arabia, in truck bearing registration no.HR-46-C-2144 and the total value of the consignment was Rs.6,57,800/-. The truck in question, while en route from Taraori to Kandla Port met with an accident and the goods loaded therein were damaged. Opposite party deputed surveyor for assessment of the loss, who after spot inspection assessed the loss and submitted the report. Required documents were submitted with the opposite party, but the matter regarding settlement of the claim was lingered on one pretext or the other.

5.                Opposite party filed written statement denying the averments made in the complaint. It has been submitted that the complainant himself was at fault as he did not timely intimate regarding the alleged accident and did not submit the required documents.

6.                 From the documents produced by the complainant it is established that 511 jute  bags containing 45 kgs each of Rice Sarbati Sella were sent to M/s Mohmad Ahmed Bin Mehfooj, Saudi Arabia on 30.01.2008 and the consignment was sent in truck bearing registration no.HR-46-C-2144 from Taraori to Kandla Port. As per the case of the complainant the truck met with an accident while en route from Taraori to Kandla Port. The complainant submitted claim with the opposite party, but the same was not settled till filing of the complaint.

7.                The goods were sent through the said truck from Taraori on 30.0.1.2008, but the cause of action accrued to the complainant when opposite party did not settle the claim for long period. Even if, it is considered that the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 30.1.2008, then also the present complaint is well within limitation, because the complaint was filed on 22.1.2010. Consequently, plea raised by the opposite party that the complaint is not within limitation is not tenable.

8.                The copy of the insurance policy Ex.C2 shows that the policy was issued by Panipat office of National Insurance Company Ltd. and not by Karnal office or Taraori office. Therefore, the plea raised by the complainant that the policy was issued by Taraori office of the insurance company stands falsified. The accident had not taken place within the area of District Karnal, rather as per the application of the opposite party the same had taken place at village Dudu on Jaipur Ajmer Road and intimation of the claim was imparted by the complainant to Jaipur office. In the application it has further been alleged that the surveyor report was sent to Panipat office and all the communications were addressed to Panipat office and the second surveyor was also appointed by Panipat office. Complainant has not been able to refute these allegations, by producing any document. Mere fact that the goods were loaded in the truck from Taraori is not sufficient to hold that the cause of action accrued to the complainant at Taraori. 9..               Policy of insurance was issued by Panipat office of the National Insurance Company. Accident had taken place in the area of Jaipur. All correspondences were made to Panipat office and no cause of action accrued within the area of Taraori or Karnal District. Therefore, this Forum at Karnal has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Such view finds support from the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance 2010(1) CLT page 252.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in concluding that this Forum at Karnal has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction in the matter. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 18.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member