Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/252/2011

KAUSAR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/252/2011
 
1. KAUSAR INDIA LTD.
AG-50, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR, N D
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
XII: 351200.IIIrd FLOOR, 6/90, PADAM SINGH ROAD, KAROL BAGH, N D
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

ORDER

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The aforementioned four complaints are between the same parties and are , therefore being disposed of by this common order.    In all these complaints a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this forum to entertain and try the complaints.   The complaints have been filed as the OP insurance company  has repudiated the claims lodged by the complainant for the expenses incurred by it on repairs of its vehicles which had met with separate  accidents.    The Ops claim  that no cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this forum and , therefore, this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to take up these cases.  The learned counsel for the OP has taken us through the insurance policies which have been purchased from the Muktsar Branch  (Punjab) of the  insurance company.   It has further been pointed out that the vehicles had been involved in accidents outside Delhi.  No vehicle of the complainant in these cases had met with an accident in Delhi.  The learned counsel has , therefore, contended that no cause of action has accrued in Delhi and has pressed into service a Judgment passed by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India in “Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004)” (2010) SCC 135 wherein it held that:

 “In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala , the State Consumer Redressal Commission , Haryana (a) alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

            We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the OP and  hold that the present complaints are not maintainable in this forum and the same are ordered to be returned for presentation before a competent forum.

The original order shall be kept in complaint number 252/11 and a copy shall be kept each in complaint numbers 253/11 , 254/11 and 27/13.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

   

 

Files be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.