Complainant Harjinder Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,45,870/- due to loss suffered by the complainant to his truck in the accident along with interest @ 15% P.A. He had further claimed Rs.1,00000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him and had also claimed Rs.20,000 as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of truck No.AP27W-1727 and the same was insured by him with the opposite party vide policy No.36010031090100202487 for a period from 1.3.2010 to 28.2.2011 which was valid on 28.5.2010 i.e. the date of accident. It was pleaded that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident and complainant in this accident has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,45,870/-. He has sent the requisite documents regarding the loss suffered by him in the accident to his truck and has also sent the documents which were demanded by the opposite party. It was next pleaded that he had requested the opposite party many times to make the payment of loss suffered by him but till date opposite party has not made any payment to the complainant. It was also pleaded that complainant has served a legal notice dated 7.5.2014 to the opposite party through his counsel for making the payment of loss amount of Rs.4,45,870/- alongwith interest @ 15% P.A. within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice but no reply had been received by him from the opposite party. It was pleaded that the claim of the complainant has neither been repudiated nor accepted by the opposite party despite the service of legal notice, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as no transaction has ever been held within its jurisdiction. Claim of the complainant had already been repudiated on 22.2.2011 on the ground of fake driving license and intimation was also given to the complainant vide letter dated 22.2.2011. On merits, it was stated that after receiving the information from the complainant regarding the loss the opposite party deputed Sh.Pravin P. Solmokar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for spot survey who after inspecting the spot submitted his report dated 10.6.2010. It was further stated that after spot inspection the opposite party was asked to furnish estimates of the loss and on the furnishing the same and claim forum on dated 4.6.2010, the opposite party deputed Sh.Vijay Badjatiya, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, indore to access the loss and on the same day, the Surveyor inspected the vehicle at M/s. Satnam Gyani Body Builders & Repairs, Vishnipuri, indore and assess the loss to the tune of Rs.113888/- and submitted his detailed report on 12.8.2010. It was also stated that opposite party has also send the Motor Vehicle documents for verification and during verification the driving license of Driver Parghat Singh was found fake as per report of Joint Director (A&A) & SPIO, Public Vehicle Department, Kolkata and as per this report the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 22.2.2011 and the intimation of the same was given to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint in the interest of justice.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C27 and closed the evidence.
- Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Shiv Lal Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.
- We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant got his truck bearing No.AP27W-1727 insured with the opposite party vide policy No.36010031090100202487 and as such is a consumer of the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 28.5.2010 and he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,45,870/-. The complainant duly informed the opposite party about the accident and even sent the requisite documents to the opposite party. But despite repeated requests of the complainant his claim has not been settled by the opposite party.
8. On the other hand opposite party has argued that the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated on 22.2.2011 on the ground of fake driving license and intimation of the same was also given to the complainant vide letter dated 22.2.2011. The learned counsel on behalf of opposite party has further argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and has cited order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (1) CLT 252 S.C. where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 “expression ‘branch office’ in amended Section 17 (2) (b) would mean branch office where the cause of action has arisen”.
9. From the entire above discussion we are of this view that no part of the cause of action arose at Gurdaspur. In the present case admittedly the policy was taken at Ludhiana and the accident occurred at near village Dongarkheda Belapur, Distt. Hingoli (Maharashtra). Place of survey was Indore and even repair of the vehicle was also effected at Indore. The claim for compensation was also rejected by the opposite party at Ludhiana. Thus no part of the cause of action arose at Gurdaspur. Hence without going into the merits of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgicals Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. the present complaint lacks territorial jurisdiction and hence hereby dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
June 08, 2015 Member.
*YP*
