Delhi

New Delhi

CC/149/2017

Satish - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC./149/2017                                       Dated:

 

In the matter of:

SATISH

S/o Sh. DHARMA SINGH  

R/o House No. 155,

Rajpur Khurd Extension

New Delhi- 68                                              ……..COMPLAINANT

 

    

VERSUS

 

Royal Sundaram General insurance company limited

1505-1506, 15^th Floor, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,Vakil Lane,

Mandi House

New Delhi-110001

   ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER: NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is that,  the complainant is the owner of Maruti EECO having Registration No. DL-3CAH-2975 insured with OP vide policy bearing no. MOP 327181000100 w.e.f. 10/12/2015 to 09/12/2016. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle was parked outside the house of the complainant on 07/04/2016 and same was stolen from the place of parking in the night of 7^th / 8^th April 2016., FIR bearing no. 10523 dt. 08/04/2016 was lodged with P.S. e- Police Station and the intimation of the same was given to the OP Insurance Co. It is further alleged by the complainant that after the prescribed period of time when the vehicle was not traceable, final report was placed  by the SHO before ACMMM-01 Saket Court and accordingly, the order was passed by Hon’ble Court on 08/06/2016 as vehicle untraced. The complainant approached OP Insurance Company for passing the claim, but the OP Insurance Company rejected the same on the false and frivolous ground that the vehicle is used for Hire and Reward purpose. It is further alleged by the complainant that he sent legal notice dated 12/02/2017, thereby calling upon the OP Insurance Company to settle the claim, the OP Insurance Company neither replied to the notice nor settle the claim of the complainant. Complainant therefore approach this Forum  for the redressal of his grievance.

On the  issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the counsel for complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturaba Gandi Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The copy of the policy in question filed by the complainant along with his complaint shows that the policy was issued from the Chennai office of the OP CO., the letter dt. 05.07.2016 issued by OP Insurance Company repudiating the claim of the complainant was issued from the Gurgaon office of the OP Company. The copy of the Policy filed along with the complaint clearly shows that the policy was not issued from the office of the OP falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum .

Before adverting to the disposal of this case, it is expedient to quote the relevant provision in their respect and the same is as follows :-

Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1. Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .
2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limit fo whose jurisdiction –

1. 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 or voluntarily resides or ( carries on business or has a branch office or ) personally work for gain or
2. 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 the business or has a branch office ), or personally work for  gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have a branch office ) , or personally work for gain, as case may be , acquiesce in such institution, or
3. The cause of action , wholly or in part arises.   

                  We are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  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.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

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

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

From the foregoing facts it is clear that neither the cause of action nor the policy was taken from place located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.  Pronounced in open Forum on 12/01/2018                              

 

                            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

                                        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                      (H M VYAS)

                                                MEMBER                                                                  MEMBER