Haryana

StateCommission

A/436/2017

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                                   

First Appeal No :  436 of 2017

Date of Institution: 11.04.2017

Date of Decision : 26.08.2019

 

 

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Plot No.6, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar No.81, Karol Bagh, New Delhi through its Authorized Signatory.

 

          Local Address: SCO 2463, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Indus Bank Minni Appu Ghar, Rohtak through its Authorized Signatory.

 

3.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, 163, Thambu Chetty Street, Parry Scorner, Chennai-600001 through its Authorized Signatory.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

 

 

 

Sher Singh son of Tek Ram, resident of Village Bhawar, Tehsil and District Sonepat at present C/o Surender, House No.1089, Sector 3, Rohtak.

 Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Ms. Manjula, Member                   

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Punit Jain, counsel for the appellants.

                             Shri Suresh Ahlawat, counsel for the respondent.

 

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J. (ORAL)

 

          The Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby they were directed to pay the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle alongwith interest besides litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the learned District Forum at Rohtak had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

3.      Admittedly, the insurance policy was issued from Karnal and the theft of the vehicle took place within the jurisdiction of Delhi.  However, the complaint was filed before the learned District Forum, Rohtak on the premises that part of the cause of action had arisen there as the complainant had sent legal notice from Rohtak, which was however not responded to by the Insurance Company.

4.      Realizing the difficulty on the issue of territorial jurisdiction to the complainant at Rohtak especially when no cause of action had arisen to the complainant there, learned counsel representing the complainant states that he may be allowed to withdraw the complaint itself with permission to file the same before the appropriate District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter.

5.      In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of by permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint itself but with liberty to move the appropriate District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter.  In case fresh complaint is filed before the appropriate District Forum within 45 days from today, the limitation would be deemed to have been condoned.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants-opposite parties at the time of filing the appeal be released in their favour against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

Announced 26.08.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK