STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                          First Appeal No  :      437 of 2017

Date of Institution:     11.04.2017

Date of Decision :      20.02.2018

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through Manager, Registered and Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

          Local Address: SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 105, 2^nd Floor, Mughal Canal, Karnal.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

1.      Ravinder Singh aged about 38 years so of Raj Pal Balyan, resident of House No.122, Sector 2, Uday Park, New Delhi now residing at 122/72, Main Road Bhagat Colony, Sant Nagar, Burari, New Delhi-110084.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Commercial Urban Estate II, Delhi Road, Near Jindal Chowk, Hisar.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.3

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member       

Present:               Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Jitender Nara, Advocate for the respondent No.1-complainant

                             Ms. Anindita P. Katyal, Advocate for the respondent No.2

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

          Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) are in appeal against the order dated December 21^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,80,000/-, that is, 75% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of truck bearing registration No.HR-55D-4205 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, January 23^rd, 2015 till its realization to Ravinder Singh-complainant on account of theft of the truck on June 08^th, 2013.    

2.      The complainant got his truck bearing registration No.HR55D-4205 insured with the Insurance Company for the period March 06^th, 2013 to March 05^th, 2014.  On June 08^th, 2013 the truck was stolen.  The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company repudiated the claim.   Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that (i) the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the insurance policy was purchased from the office of Insurance Company at Karnal and (ii) there was delay of 03 days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and 41 days in informing the Insurance Company.

4.      Regarding the territorial jurisdiction, in the insurance policy (Exhibit C-1), Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited-opposite party No.3 (for short, ‘Finance Company’), that is, sister concern of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, was the intermediary between the Insurance Company.  The vehicle was got financed by the Finance Company at Hisar.  Thus, the cause of action arose at Hisar.  The District Forum, Hisar had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore the contention raised is rejected.

5.      The next submission is that there was delay of 03 days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and 41 days in informing the Insurance Company.  It was specifically stated by the complainant in paragraph no.4 of the complaint that the complainant immediately informed the Finance Company.  In reply thereto, the Insurance Company did not rebut.  So, the plea raised is without merit and is repelled.

6.      Coming now to the submission raised that the Insurance Company was informed after 41 days. The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 41 days in giving intimation to it.   Apart from this, the District Forum has awarded the compensation on non standard basis and the complainant has not filed any appeal before this Commission.  This plea also carries no weight.   

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. 

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

UK