DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 646/2019
D.No.________________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
BALWAN SINGH KUNDU,
S/o SH. MANGE RAM,
R/o 4411, DEFENCE COLONY, JIND,
HARYANA-126102. … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
H.O. 87, M.G. ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI-400001.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE: NEAR TRUCK UNION,
ROHTAK ROAD, GOHANA, HARYANA-131301.
3. SH. RAJESH SHARMA,
INVESTIGATOR FOR THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE Co. LTD.,
F-81, UTSAV APARTMENT, SEC.-18,
ROHINI, DELHI-110089.
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE: CDU-310900,
SACHDEVA CORPORATE TOWER, 1st FLOOR,
PLOT No.8, DDA MARKET, SEC.-8,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 13.08.2019
Date of decision: 27.09.2019
CC No.646/2019 Page 1 of 5
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
ORDER
1. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant on the point of territorial jurisdiction and have perused the record carefully.
2. After going through the pleading and arguments on admission, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaintalleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the ground that the complainant has taken a Motor policy for his vehicle bearing Registration no. HR-31-F-8672, engine no. 4751DT20HZYP72165, chassis no. MAT607163AWH37980 make TATA Motors Ltd., model Indigo CL LX BS IV & colour white from OP-1 and paid the annual premium of Rs.5,010/- and OP-1 issued policy through OP-2 which works under OP-1 and the policy was issued to the complainant on 09.03.2017 vide policy no. 35380331160100002389. Thereafter, the complainant’s vehicle for which the complainant has purchased the policy was stolen on 05.03.2018 from Bhagat Singh Park, Nangloi-Najafgarh Road, Delhi and the complainant was regularly paying the premium and the sum assured or IDV for the policy was Rs.2,35,000/-. The complainant further alleged that the complaint has registered an E-FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle at the concerned e-Police Station, M.V. theft no. 7205, P.S. Ranhola through online mode on 05.03.2018 and the complainant has received the untraced report in respect to the said vehicle on 30.08.2018. The complainant further alleged that the complainant
CC No.646/2019 Page 2 of 5
filed the claim documents after this incident in the office of OP-2 and claim no.35380331170190000207 was raised for the same. On 22.08.2018, Inspection Officer Sh. Rajesh Sharma i.e. OP-3 has sent a letter to the complainant related to the survey/ investigation on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 and on 24.01.2019, the complainant has received the objection letter from OP-2 related to the policy claim by the complainant. On 30.04.2019, the complainant sent a reminder letter to OP-2 regarding the claim and the main fact of the case is that on the day of theft the complainant’s vehicle met with break-down and due to which the complaint has parked the vehicle at a place which was known to him as it belongs to the complainant’s friend and all the persons of the area used to park the vehicle at that place and they are using that place for parking from many years and even till date they are using that place for the parking and the parking area is surrounded by the houses and it was not a lonely place but OP-1 & OP-2 were objecting mainly on the ground that the vehicle was parked in a lonely place and was left as unattended and it is just an excuse of OP-1 & OP-2 to harass the complainant and to avoid the liabilities as per the insurance policy. The complainant further alleged that the complainant made various complaints to OP-1 & OP-2 but till date OP-1 & OP-2 have not addressed his grievance and has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs.
CC No.646/2019 Page 3 of 5
3. Before going into the merits of the case, we are deciding the main question of territorial jurisdiction. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard.
4. The complainant purchased the Insurance Policy from OP-2 and paid premium to OP-2, which is evident from insurance policy and the correspondenceoffice address has been mentioned at Gohana, Haryana in the Policy and the complainant received repudiation of claim letter dated 27.03.2019 from OP-2 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Brand office Gohana-131301, Haryana. There is no correspondence on the file between the complainant and insurance company i.e. OP at Delhi so as to infer the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The issue of territorial jurisdiction of maintainability of the consumer complaint is a basic issue which goes to the root of the matter and has to be decided first before undertaking any further proceedings as held by Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi in Braham Prakash V/s Vikas Yadav & Anr.1 (2010) CPJ 136 and in this case, it was held by the Hon’ble Commission that it is a settled law as to the maintainability of the complaint being beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum it was the duty of the District Forum to have decided the issue of maintainability of the Complaint. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, no cause of action can be said to have been arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this
CC No.646/2019 Page 4 of 5
Forum. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Company Ltd.2010 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP) this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Forum having competent jurisdiction and the period of limitation may be condoned. The complaint be returned to the complainantalongwith documents for presenting before the competent forum in accordance with law against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly disposed off in above terms.
5. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to Record Room
Announced on 27st day of September, 2019
(BARIQ AHMAD) (USHA KHANNA) (M.K. GUPTA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
CC No.646/2019 Page 5 of 5
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
