Punjab

Sangrur

CC/383/2017

M/s Harbhajan Singh and Company - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kali Ram Garg

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                               

               

                                                Complaint No.  383

                                                Instituted on:    02.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.02.2018

 

 

 

M/s. Harbhajan Singh and Company through its partners Harbhajan Singh aged 53 years son of Harbans Singh and Randhir Singh aged 56 years son of Harbans Singh, House No.138, Ward No.8-A, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             National Insurance Company Ltd through its Branch Manager, Branch No.6, GT Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana 141001.

2.             Sunderam Finance Limited through its Branch Manager, Branch Office on the 1^st Floor of Federal Bank, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

3.             M/s. Madhav Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office Gandhi Chowk, Ahemdgarh 148021 District Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.2 and 3    :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Harbahajan Singh and Company through its partners Harbhajan Singh and Randhir Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by getting his Tata truck multi wheel base bearing registration number PB-13-AF-6845 insured vide cover note number 401407809867 for the period from 13.2.2015 to 12.2.2016   for Rs.22,40,000/-, but no terms and conditions of the policy were supplied at the spot.  It is further averred that the said truck was got financed from OP number 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said truck of the complainant on 5.6.2015 was loaded with 15 tons of stone from M/s. Kahlon Stone Crusher Village Waziran PS Hazipur, Tehsil Mukerian Distt. Hoshiarpur on 5.6.2015 and the truck in question met with an accident on 6.6.2015 near village Ghogra, as suddenly a stray cattle came from the fields in front of the truck and when the driver tried to save the cattle, the truck lost control and it turned on the right side of the road, as a result of which the truck in question was badly damaged.  Thereafter DDR no.19 dated 7.6.2015 was recorded in PS Dasuya and the OP number 1 was intimated, who appointed Shri Vishal Rana, surveyor to asses the loss and thereafter  M/s. R.P. Bhasin & Company of Ludhiana, but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 30.09.2016 without appreciating the genuineness of the claim, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.4,98,353/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the policy in question was issued at Ludhiana so  this Forum at Sangrur has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 13.2.2015 to 12.2.2016 for Rs.22,40,000/-, but it has been denied that the vehicle was insured at Dhuri.  Further case of the OPs is that the complainant was asked to submit the copy of GR , but the same was not submitted at the spot, which was submitted later on.  Further case of the OPs is that Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni again visited M/s. Kehlon Stone Crusher, who gave his report dated 12.5.2016 that vehicle number PB-13-AF-6845 owned by M/s. Harbhajan Singh and Company loaded by them vide bill number 172 dated 5.6.2015 having size 40x65mm aggregate stone having value hoop supplies having approximate weight of 20-22 tones, but refused to show the bill record and issued a certificate dated 11.5.2016 in this respect on the letter head of M/s . Kehlon Stone Crusher, as such the Op number 1 wrote letter to the complainant to show the original record, but the same was not shown, as such the complainant was requested to clarify his position in this regard, but the complainant did not turn up, as such , the claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the claim with special cost.

 

3.             Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1  has produced  Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/20 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by getting insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AF-6845 for the period from 13.2.2015 to 12.2.2016 for Rs.22,40,000/- comprehensively.  The grievance of the complainant is that the truck in question met with an accident on 6.6.2015 when the same was loaded with bajri in the District Hoshiarpur, intimation of which was given to the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 accordingly deputed surveyor to assess the loss, but thereafter, the Op number 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2016 without appreciating the facts of the claim.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the insurance cover note/ policy was issued at Ludhiana, which fact is also evident from the copy of the insurance cover note, Ex.OP1/13.  A bare perusal of the insurance cover note Ex.OP1/13 clearly reveals that it was issued at Ludhiana.  It is worth mentioning here that since the agreement in question was entered into between the parties at Ludhiana, as such, we feel that this Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction.

 

7.             Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read as under:-

Jurisdiction of the District Forum (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

 

(2)            A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

 

(3)            the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of 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”

         In clause 11(2)(a) and (b), the words used are ‘at the time of institution of the complaint’. Whatsoever happened before the ‘institution of the complaint’ is immaterial. There is no pleading that at the time of institution of the present complaint, the OPs were carrying on business or had branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no pleading in the complaint that cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.       Further we may mention that the complainant has miserably failed to establish that any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Further, it is worth mentioning here that no relief has been claimed by the complainant against the OPs number 2 and 3, as such the complaint against the OPs number 2 and 3 is not maintainable before this Forum.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant only on the ground that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if he so desired. 

 

9.              A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                February 13, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                       Member