Haryana

Ambala

CC/295/2011

SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

M.L.SHARMA

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

             

                 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

              Complaint Case No.    : 295 of 2011

Date of Institution       : 13.09.2011

            Date of Decision         : 15.02.2017

 

Suresh Kumar aged about 40 years about 40 years son of sh. Mangat Ram Vill. Dhamoulil Uparli, Teh. Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.                                                                                               

……Complainant.

Versus

Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited through its manager Corporate Claims department, Sundram tower 45 and 46 white Road, Chennai-600014.

Second address: - Royal sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited having its head office at SCO No. 132, first Floor, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, through Sh. Parveen Baggu.

                                                                                    ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. M.L. Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, counsel for OPs.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Sonalika International Tractor DI-750-III Model 2009, Engine No. JZZSB1516493 from Jagdamba Trading Company, Naraingarh in the year 2009, on the same day of purchasing the tractor the complainant insured his tractor from Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company limited through its agent. One day, the complainant loaded a trolley with sugarcane reached near the bus stand of villag Ranipur, some unknown persons who were standing there gave a signal to stop the tractor and requested the complainant that they have to go Yamuna Nagar and requested him to give lift on the tractor. The complainant considering their request allowed them to sit on the tractor. When the complainant reached near village Makhaur, one of them put the complainant at gun point and asked the complainant to

 

stop the tractor and the complainant obeyed their order and they dropped the complainant from the tractor. Two persons delinked the trolley from the tractor and fled away and the other person took the complainant with him in a field of sugarcane and tied him with rope and they took the complainant to the village side and thereafter they tied the complainant with a safeda tree. Those persons also snatched the mobile of complainant bearing No. 99910-73023 and a cash amount of Rs. 600/- and those persons remained with the complainant at about 02:00 a.m. and thereafter ran away. The complainant at about 05:00p.m. released himself and reached at village Gyanewala. The policy number is VOC0017548000100 in the police station Sadar Jagadhari. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company for giving his claim as per policy but on dated 09.03.2011, the complainant was repudiated the claim of the complainant because the complainant used the vehicle for commercial purpose. So, the complainant suffered a huge loss due to theft of his tractor.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.  

2.                     Upon notice, OP tendered reply and submitting that instant application is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum since this Hon’ble Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this instant matter as policy was taken by the complainant from Chandigarh office of the OP, accident happened at Yamuna Nagar (Jagadhri Dist) and claim of the complainant was lodged with the Chennai office of OP. Further submitted that the complainant for the first time had taken private motor package policy No. VOC0017548000100 in respect to tractor Sonalika Vehicle bearing No. HR-04C-4542 and the same was valid from 28.02.2009 to 27.02.2010. Further submitted that the complainant belatedly informed about the theft a delay of 40 days from the date of loss. Further submitted that the policy terms strictly provide that all loss or damages shall be intimated immediately.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op tendered affidavit Anenxures R-1 alongwith documents as Annexures R-2 to R-6 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. At the very outset, the first and foremost question arises before us for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not?.

                        Counsel for OP has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint.  Counsel for OP argued that

policy in question has been issued to the complainant from their office at Chandigarh as party in the present complaint only to circumvent the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Counsel for OP has further argued that  there is no cause of action arises at Ambala and vehicle in question has been snatched from the area of Yamunanagar.  So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In support of his case, counsel for Ops no.2 & 3 has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. The counsel also emphasized on Section 11(2) (a)(b) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.   The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company case (supra) is as under:-

“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 in1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendement to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.03.2003- 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.

                        On the other hand, counsel for complainant has argued that vehicle of complainat is registered with Registering Authority, Ambala and also he is resident of District Ambala as such, this Hon’ble Forum has very much jurisdiction to entertain & try the present complaint. In support of their contention, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressasl Commission, Chandigarh tilted Kurukshetra University & Ors. Vs. Vinay Parkash Verma reported in II(1993) CPJ-647 Pg. 647 wherein held that : “The objection to territorial jurisdiction is a threshold  question which if not seriously pressed is deemed to be waived. It bears repetition and the record is witness thereto, that though fully represented by counsel, the appellant-university did not press the territorial jurisdiction at the threshold before entering into the merits of the lis. Apart from taking the plea in its pleadings, the university-appellants did not seek the determination of the question from the District Forum at the very portals  of the consumer jurisdiction as a preliminary one. As the order under appeal indicates the question seems to have been  raised only at the stage of concluding arguments and it has been so noticed expressly in para 9 thereof. It appears to us that they willingly participated in the trial of the summary consumer lis and it would be  inappropriate that the  order under appeal should be set aside on this ground after it has turned against the appellants on merits”.

 5.                    After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is established that the policy in question was issued to the complainant by the OP and was got financed from L&T Finance Ltd. Panchkula and also got the vehicle insured from branch office of Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. at Panchkula by his financer and head office also is situated at Kurukshetra as per policy schedule Annexure R-2.  As per the FIR (Annexure C-1), the vehicle in question has been snatched in the area of Yamunanagar, so, there is no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of Forum at Ambala. If it is presumed that the resident of the complainant is situated at Ambala  and vehicle in question registered at Ambala but the loss has to  be indemnified by the OP. Even then, there is  no office of OP situated at Ambala for doing business or for gain any profit.   

                               Therefore, in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical (supra), we hold that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, thus we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised provided the complainant may approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg.583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON:  15.02.2017                                                       

                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                                Sd/-

                 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER