Haryana

StateCommission

A/40/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVISH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.BEDI

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.40 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15.01.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.01.2016

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office near P.S.Sadar Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar through its duly constituted attorney at Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., divisional Office 313, Model town, Delhi Road, Rohtak, through its duly constituted attorney at Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Ravish Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Kumar, R/o village Silothi,Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

         Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.P.S.Bedi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The complainant got insured his vehicle TRAX Cruiser bearing registration No.HR-66-4652 from the opposite parties O.Ps. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle was stolen on 26.09.2011 by unknown person.  FIR No.257 dated 27.09.2011 was registered for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short “I.P.C.”). He immediately informed opposite parties (O.Ps.) about the theft and submitted claim after completing all the formalities. Untrace report  was filed by the police.   He filed claim of Rs.3,00,000/- with the insurance company, but, they refused to give the claim on the ground that the driver left the key in the ignition point of vehicle.

2.      O.Ps. alleged in it’s reply that  vehicle was parked unattended in negligence manner by it’s driver as the key was left in the vehicle.    Intimation was given to it by the complainant on 05.10.2011, whereas theft took place on 26.09.2011, after ten days. Investigator Mr.Devender Singh was appointed and he submitted his report dated 12.03.2012.  The claim was repudiated as no claim on 28.02.2012 as the complainant breached the terms and conditions of policy. Objections about Jurisdiction, suppressing true and material facts, accruing cause of action and locus standi were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing counsel for the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.12.2014 and directed the respondents to pay Rs.Three lac to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellants-O.ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      The main question for consideration before us is as to whether District Forum, Jhajjar had territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

7.      Admittedly the incident took place within the District of Mahendergarh, whereas the complaint was filed at Jhajjar. Residence of complainant at Jhajjar, would not confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum, Jhajjar, as no cause of action arose at this place. Merely because an office of O.Ps. is situated at Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, is no ground to presume jurisdiction by District Consumer Forum at Jhajjar.

Such controversy has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP), wherein it was held that:-

“Incidence of fire in the appellant’s godown at Ambala –Complaint claiming compensation from the respondent allowed by the State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh – National Commission set aside the said order accepting the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the State Commission, Union Territory had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint –Hence, the present appeal –Admittedly no cause of action arose at Chandigarh – Insurance policy taken at Ambala, fire broke out in the godown at Ambala, and the claim for compensation also made at Ambala –Cause of action arose in 1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendment to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.3.2003 – Contention that the respondent-insurance company having a branch office at Chandigarh, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh under the amended Section 17(2) rejected as unacceptable –It would have led to absurd consequences of bench hunting, meaning thereby that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a complaint in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India –Cause of action having arisen at Ambala, the State Commission, Haryana alone to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Impugned order of the National Commission agreed with –Appeal dismissed.”

 

In para Nos.3 and 4 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

 

“3. ……………On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.”

“4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”

 

In para No.9 and 10 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“9.     ……….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.

 

10. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

The above said judgement is fully applicable in the present case.

8.      In view of above discussion, the District Forum Jhajjar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. So the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 is set aside and appeal is allowed.  The complainant shall be at liberty to file complaint before the competent District Forum. The complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the State Commission  in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and verification.

 

January 13th, 2016     Urvashi Agnihotri         R.K.Bishnoi                                               Member                        Judicial Member                                       Addl. Bench                  Addl.Bench                 

 

S.K.