BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:76 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 03.02.2011.
Date of Decision:07.12.2015
Naresh Soni, aged 45 years, son of Sh. Tara Chand Soni, resident of Jawahar Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Co. Ltd, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
- M/s Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Bhiwani through its Authorized representative.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Shri Satender, Advocate for
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a Maruti Swift LDI Car bearing registration No. HR-16H/0347 model 2009 from OP no. 2. The complainant alleged that he had got the aforesaid Car insured for an amount of Rs. 3,74,418/- from OP no. 1 vide cover note bearing no. 71107311 dated 26.03.2010 covering the period from 26.03.2010 to 25.03.2010. The complainant alleged that on 04.06.2010 above said vehicle was stolen from Kharkhoa, District Sonepat and FIR No. 142 dated 04.06.2010 was registered in Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. The complainant alleged that the intimation regarding the theft was given in writing by the complainant to the Insurance Company vide his application dated 14.08.2010. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities he visited the office of the opposite party but opposite party did not take any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice through his counsel on 19.11.2010 but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant neither informed the OP about the alleged incident of snatching car nor even lodged any claim with the OP. It is submitted that the complainant was not produced the original insurance policy on the file. It is submitted that the car is said to have been snatched on 04.06.2010 whereas the intimation is alleged to have been sent on 14.08.2010 Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 on appearance also filed written statement. It is submitted at the out-set that the complainant has filed the present complaint on account of theft of his car which stood insured with the OP no. 1 at the relevant time. It is submitted that neither the complainant comes within the purview of consumer qua the answering respondent so far as the disputed involved is concerned nor he has claimed any relief against the answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on supporting affidavits.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car of the complainant was stolen on 04.06.2010 from Kharkhoa, District Sonepat and FIR No. 142 dated 04.06.2010 was lodged with the concerned police station. The intimation of the theft of the car was also given to the opposite party vide letter dated 14.08.2010 through registered post, but the opposite party has failed to settle the claim of the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. The counsel for the OP no. 1 submitted that the policy of the car in question was taken by the complainant from the Delhi office of the opposite party. He further submitted that no cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum, as per the allegation of the complainant the car in question was stolen from Kharkhoa, District Sonepat. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-
I Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 dated 20.10.2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II Melanie Das Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. in First Appeal No. 225 of 2013 dated 13.01.2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
III Hemant Goyal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Varun Bharti in F.A. No. 1485 of 2011 dated 11.12.2013 of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The address of the office of the National Insurance Company on the cover note issued for the car in question for the period 26.03.2010 to 25.03.2011, has been mentioned as Connaught Place, New Delhi. According to the complainant the car in question was stolen from Kharkhoa, District Sonepat. Admittedly, no part of cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.
The counsel for the OP no. 1 vehemently argued that the complainant did not lodge any claim with the opposite party about the theft of his car to the issuing office of the opposite party. The complainant could not bring to our notice any document of OP no. 1, to prove that the complainant had lodged the claim for the theft of his car alongwith necessary documents to the opposite party.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra) held as under:-
“In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where as branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. 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 [vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]”.
11. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The complainant has not placed any correspondence of OP no. 1, which could reflect that the claim was lodged by the complainant for the theft of his car with OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 processed his claim. In the absence of cogent evidence in favour of the complainant in support of his contention, we direct the complainant to lodge his claim with OP no. 1 with requisite documents, within 30 days from the date of this order and the OP no. 1 is directed to process and intimate its decision to the complainant within 90 days from the date of receipt of claim and requisite documents. With this observation, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 07.12.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
