DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.301 of 2016

                                                  Date of institution:  20.05.2016                                                 Date of decision   :  19.07.2018

Santokh Singh son of Hazara Singh resident of H.No.49, Village Seoli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd. (A Govt. of India undertaking) registered office 3 Middle Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071.

2.     National Insurance Company Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking) serving office – Ambala Division – 106 Railway Road, Ambala Cantt (Haryana) 133001.

                                                              ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Hazara Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Madan Singh Dasila, counsel for OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, owner of Tata Xenon vehicle bearing registration No.PB-65-X-1778 of model 2015, got the same insured with OPs vide Policy No.55270031146360097615 for period from 12.09.2014 to 11.09.2015. This vehicle met with an accident on 10.08.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. because the same struck against the divider at Saharanpur Jail Chungi Road leading to Haridawar. This vehicle was on its way from village Seoli to Haridwar at that time and it was driven by Vijay Kumar who was holding valid driving license. Matter of accident was reported to police. Vehicle stood damaged. Complainant approached OPs many times with request to pay him compensation of the damaged vehicle, but nothing done, even despite service of legal notice dated 08.04.2016. Prayer made for directing OPs to pay compensation. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply, it is claimed that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because no cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Accident took place on road leading to Haridawar. Complainant is justifying jurisdiction on the basis of residence only, which is not permissible. Contract of insurance between complainant and OPs is matter of utmost faith and both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the policy known as Private Vehicle Package Policy. Present complaint has been filed just for maligning reputation of OPs despite the fact that there is no deficiency in service on their part and nor they adopted any unfair trade practice. OP No.2 has not repudiated the insurance claim at any stage. Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, but he has concocted a story qua OP No.1 for harassing him. Complainant has not given details of the accident and nor has annexed any claim form or details of damage to the vehicle or letter of repudiation or copy of DDR. Prayer made for directing complainant to produce on record details of police report as well as copy of driving license. As the driving license was fake one and as such claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. Prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-6 and thereafter closed evidence. As after closure of evidence none appeared for OPs and nor cost paid and as such OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.2018. That order passed by this Forum was set aside through orders dated 04.04.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.8  of 2018. Cost of Rs.4,000/- has already been paid by OPs and as such in view of orders of Hon’ble State Commission, OPs were allowed to lead evidence. After tendering affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Sanjeev Khurana, Assistant Manager alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18, counsel for OPs closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             First and foremost question requires determination is as to whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction or not. In case this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, then the findings recorded on merits will become meaningless, because the order passed by a court/Forum having no jurisdiction is nonest in the eyes of law. Bone of contention remains as to whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction or not.   

6.             Counsel for complainant admitted that the insurance policy was purchased from Ambala Brach and the same fact even reflected by copy of insurance cover Ex.OP-1. Admittedly the accident in question took place on Saharanpur Road in area of UP State. Repudiation of claim took place at Ambala and as such it is obvious that no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that as OPs have their branch office at Mohali and as such this Forum has jurisdiction. However, branch office of OPs at Mohali has not been impleaded as a party at all. Rather the registered office of National Insurance Company of Kolkata alongwith serving office at Ambala Cantt. alone are impleaded as party. Being so, the complaint has been filed against the parties/OPs, who are not residents of Mohali at all or who are not carrying on business at Mohali. In view of these circumstances benefit from ratio of case titled as Pratap Chandra Sinha Vs. M/s. Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2017(4) CLT 271 (NC) cannot be gained by counsel for complainant, even though ratio of cited case lays that complaint can be filed at the place where Head Office/Registered Office of OP is situate, despite the fact that no cause of action arose at that place. In the reported case it was found that Head Office/Registered Office of company situate at Delhi and as such consumer complaint can be filed before the State Commission at Delhi. Those findings were recorded in circumstances that Delhi office of OP was impleaded as a party. However, that is not the position in the case before us because here Mohali office of OPs has not at all been impleaded as a party. Moreover, no part of cause of action wholly or in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum because of damage to vehicle caused in UP State and insurance cover obtained in Haryana State.

7.             Ratio of case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 40 lays that if the fire broke down in a godown at Ambala and even the insurance policy taken at Ambala, then insurance compensation claim can be made at Ambala only. Hon’ble Apex Court of the Country in this case of Sonic Surgical further held that place of branch office of insurance company can be taken into consideration for finding the territorial jurisdiction, if cause of action arose in the area of that branch office. However, no part of cause of action arose in the reported case at Chandigarh and as such it was held that Consumer Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the consumer complaint. Facts of this reported case are identical to the facts of the present case as held above and as such in view of non accrual of cause of action or any part thereof within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as well as in view of the fact that none of the impleaded OPs have their office at Mohali, it has to be held that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.

8.             Even in case Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahajan Singh,2017(1) CPJ 10 (Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun) it has been held that mere mention of fact in insurance policy that policy was signed at Rishikesh  not enough to confer jurisdiction on a Forum exercising jurisdiction over that area. Rather in the reported case it was found that no part of cause of action accrued in favour of complainant at Rishikesh and the office of insurance company was within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Garhwal and as such District Forum, Dehradun has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. In view of filing of complaint in a Forum having no territorial jurisdiction, complaint was dismissed by granting liberty to complainant to approach appropriate Forum. Likewise in the reported case titled as Surendra Kumar Jhamb Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others (II) 2015 CPJ 82 (NC) it was found that if the policy was issued by Hyderabad branch office of OPs and treatment got at Delhi, then the consumer complaint in District Forum Sonepat not maintainable because no cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of that Forum. Same is the position in this case, as discussed above, and as such certainly this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Being so, complaint deserves to be dismissed by grant of liberty to complainant to approach the appropriate Forum for availing remedy.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant will be at liberty to approach appropriate Forum. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 19, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member