Haryana

StateCommission

A/959/2014

Jitender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.959 of 2014

                                      Date of Institution:20.10.2014

                                      Date of Decision: 09.11.2016

 

 

Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Dharam Singh, R/o VPO Chakkarpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                                          …Appellant/complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rider House, Ground and First Floor, Plot No.136, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Divisional Officer.

                                      …Respondent/opposite party

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got insured his truck  w.e.f.30.07.2009 to 29.07.2010 for Rs.19,95,000/- with opposite party (in short ‘OP’). The vehicle in question was stolen on 14.09.2009 and FIR to this effect was registered on the same day in police station, Delhi Cantt. He submitted claim with the OP, but was declined.

2.      OP filed reply, controverting his averments and alleged that complainant failed to submit final report, Registration Certificate (in short ‘R.C’), original ignition keys and driving license. Insurance policy was taken from Regional office, New Delhi and accident took place in Delhi, so the claim of complainant was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy and that is why nothing was paid to him.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.05.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 12.05.2014 on the ground that the same was premature because claim was not decided as yet and that the same was not having territorial jurisdiction.

7.      From the perusal of proposal form it is clear that the same was obtained from branch of Gurgaon. In this way learned District Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to try this matter and complaint cannot be dismissed on this ground. As for as  question of premature is concerned documents were supplied to the counsel for respondent/OP on 02.09.2015 before this commission. Let the matter be decided within two months from today, thereafter, complainant will be at liberty to file the fresh complaint, if he likes. With these observations, impugned order dated 12.05.2014 is set aside and appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 

November 09th, 2016          Urvashi Agnihotri       R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                         Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench              Addl. Bench

R.K.