Haryana

Karnal

CC/289/2019

Sheela - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Bhardwaj

22 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 289 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.23.05.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 22.01.2021

 

Sheela aged about 44 years wife of Shri Kehar Singh resident of village Kheri Naru, Tehsil and District Karnal. Aadhaar no.8614 5766 9011, mobile no.9991205577.

                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.      

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri S.N. Bhardwaj Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant got insured her Car Swift Dezire LXI bearing registration no.HR-45B-9776 with the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP), vide policy no.MOQ1172274, valid from 22.11.2017 to 21.11.2018. The said car of the complainant was stolen by some unknown thief on 16.11.2018 between 20.30 and 6.00 from B-140, Suraj Park Extension, near Sector-18 DTC Depot opp. MTNL, office Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi. Regarding the abovesaid incident, an FIR no.040755, under section 379 IPC, dated 16.11.2018 registered in the Police Station e-police Station (Samai Pur Badli, Rohini). The police has already submitted untraced report before the Illaqua Magistrate. The complainant had applied for compensation, vide claim no.CV00031784 with the OPs alongwith all relevant documents demanded by the OPs. The investigator of the OPs has also submitted his report regarding the theft of the car of the complainant. Even after repeated requests, the OPs did not award claim in favour of the complainant and sent letter dated 20.03.2019 to the complainant, vide which OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that no proper step were taken by the complainant to safeguard the vehicle from loss.

2.             The complainant had taken the said car on loan from Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Ltd., Karnal and the said company is issuing notice to the complainant for paying balance installment but due to the theft of the abovesaid car, the complainant has no source of income to repay the loan amount. The complainant requested the OP so many times for giving claim but OP did not pay the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that there is no branch office at Karnal. The policy was issued at Delhi. Moreover, the cause of action i.e. the loss caused to the subject matter has not occurred within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Since the OP neither resides nor has any branch which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission. It is further pleaded that at the time of theft the complainant had already sold the vehicle to one Mr. Prem Kumar and therefore she had no insurable interest in the subject matter insured. Further, no proper care was taken to safeguard the vehicle thereby violating condition no.5 of the policy. It is further pleaded that a commercial vehicle policy for car in question was issued in favour of Mrs. Sheela. The policy was issued at Delhi. It is further pleaded that a claim was intimated with the insurer on 04.12.2018 alleging theft of the vehicle on 16.11.2018 thereby violating condition no.1 of the policy which requires immediate intimation to the insurer whenever any loss is caused to the subject matter insured. It is further pleaded that upon receipt of claim intimation the complainant was requested to submit necessary claim documents so as to enable the OP to process the claim. Also M/s Jain and Associates were appointed to carry out private investigation to assess the genuineness of the claim and to rule out the possibility of fraud. It is further pleaded that upon submission of the FIR by the complainant and the investigator’s report it was brought to light that the vehicle had been sold to one Mr. Prem Kumar. The FIR was marked on 16.11.2018 by Mr. Prem Kumar wherein he had clearly stated that his vehicle had been stolen. Further, in the statements given by the complainant and Prem Kumar it came to light that the possession of the vehicle was handed over to Prem Kumar and that he had been paying the installments to the financer from his own pocket. Also only one key had been submitted and no explanation was provided for the non-submission of second key and the vehicle had been parked for away from the residence of Prem Kumar. It is further pleaded that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle and no precautions were taken to safeguard the vehicle as the same was left unattended. Also the second key was not provided despite repeated reminders. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C4, letter dated 20.03.2019 Ex.C5, Aadhar card Ex.C6, copy of untraced report Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 22.11.2019, vide her separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Omkar, S.Utture Assistant Manager Legal Ex.OP1/A, copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP1, claim form Ex.OP2, theft claim procedure letter Ex.OP3, copy of FIR Ex.OP4, investigation report Ex.OP5 and repudiation letter Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 16.03.2020, vide separate statement.  

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she got insured her vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45B-9776 with the OP. The said vehicle was stolen on 16.11.2018 has taken place. The intimation was sent to the OP in this regard and claim was filed with the OP but OP did not pay the claim after repeated requests.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that complainant has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle as he sold the vehicle. Further, the vehicle was left unattended at the time of incident. Hence, OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9.             Learned counsel for OP argued that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as no cause of action has arisen at Karnal. The policy in question was purchased at Delhi, incident also took place in Delhi and prayed for deciding the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction first.

10.           On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant residing at Karnal and the office of the OP is also situated at Karnal, and thus, this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

11.           Arguments heard. Record perused.

12.           A careful perusal of the record reveals that insurance policy Ex.C4 issued from Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj, New Delhi. The vehicle in question had been stolen at Delhi. FIR Ex.C3 was also got registered in Police Station Samai Pur Badli, Rohini (Delhi).

13.           The present complaint was filed on 23.05.2019 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Now Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has already been repealed on 20.07.2020 and New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has come into force.

14.           The present complaint is to be decided as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the new Act has not applied retrospectively. In the old Act, territorial jurisdiction was defined in Section 11 which reproduced as under:-

 

 

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:-

11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office, or) works for gain; or

b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or) personally works for gain: Provided that in such case either the permission f the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office, or) personally work, or gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c)  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arise.

 Neither cause of action has ever been arisen at Karnal nor OP actually and voluntarily resides at Karnal. Hence, plea taken by the complainant that the office of OP is situated in Karnal, has no force. In this regard, we relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 379  this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint merely for the reason that one of the branch office of OP at Karnal.

As per the Section 11 of C.P. Act 1986 and in view of the abovesaid judgment, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction to redressed her grievance, if so advised, and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. She would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.01.2021

 

 

                                                                       

                                                                    President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

      Member                               Member