BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.187/12.
Date of instt.: 05.07.2012.
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.
Vijay Pal Saini S/o Krishan Lal Saini, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 19, Reliance Centre Watchard Hira Chand Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai, through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Opp. J.B.College, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager.
3. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 3rd floor Nanavati Mahila, 18, Hansi Mody Street Mumbai Inter-alia Corporate Office at Ist Floor, Cybertech House No.63, Road No.21/34.
4. Sai Enterprises Karnal Road Pundri through proprietor Kuldeep Singh S/o Krishan Kumar now painter at Bus Stand Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Jarnail Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Ashwani Kanyan, Adv. for Op No.4.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that after receiving the information about the alleged loss, the answering Ops immediately appointed M/s. Suraksha Enterprises and he has submitted his report dt. 03.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the insured gave written statement to the investigator that he has sold Tata Indica Car No.HR08G-6958 to one Satish Kumar son of Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma, r/o Jind in the month of August 18, 2007. The said statement was himself written as-well-as signed by insured himself. Moreover, the insured himself gave said agreement duly attested and endorsed at Sr. No.889 dt. 18.08.2007 by Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Notary Public, Kaithal in his register to the investigator. So, it is crystal clear that the insured Vijay Pal had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of alleged loss, if any; that the said insured has not got registered any FIR/DDR qua the said accident, if any which is mandatory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that a bare perusal of policy reveals that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana only. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the Op No.3 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is having its registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001. It provides financial services of repute with the operation spread out all over the country; that in order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple a non-statutory contract; that the complainant had hypothecated the vehicle in question with the answering Op in terms of clause 12.1 of the submission of the learned counsel for the bank that as-soon-as a decree is passed or order is made in favour of the complainant, the bank is entitled to the said amount is well founded. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complaint of complainant is bad for joinder of unnecessary party, in fact the answering Op never remained the agent of reliance general insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op neither received any kind of premium nor issued any general insurance policy to the complainant. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 and closed evidence on 19.09.2014. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 15.01.2015 and the Ops No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to RC and closed evidence on 24.03.2015.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
7. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant after getting the loan from Tata Motor Ltd. Finance Service Ltd., Pehowa Chowk Kaithal purchased a Tata Indica GLSXETA Engine No.37741 chassis No.38801 and got insured the same with the Op No.4 vide policy/cover note No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that during the subsistence of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gurgaon and damaged totally, so, there was total loss to the vehicle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy bearing No.1692937 dt. 22.03.2007, Ex.C1 was issued at Ludhiana and accident took place at Gurgaon. We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum. Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum. Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly 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-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant.
9. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So, we disposed off the same on the ground of jurisdiction. Complainant, however, directed to move proper court/forum for redressal of his grievance in this regard. He will be also entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act remained pending before this Forum. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
