BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 90 of 2015.

                                                         Date of Institution: 27.3.2015.

                                                          Date of Order: 28.01.2019.

Bijender Singh son of Shri Satya Narain, resident of village Fartiya Kehar, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

1.       Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8EPIP, RICO, Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Manager.

2.       Shri Anter Singh, near Chungi No.7, Bhiwani Road, Loharu, authorized agent of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited.

…...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he owner of TATA 2518 LPK HYYAV, bearing registration No.HR61B-3059 and the same was insured with the OP No.1 vide policy No.108048/31/13/ 012333 and the OP has charged the premium for the same, thus, the complainant is consumer qua OPs.  It is further alleged that the vehicle in question has turned down on 29.7.2013 and sustained extensive damages and the complainant has got repaired the same from Vipin Auto Mobiles, Sirsa Road, Hisar by paying Rs.1,34,900/- and from Ankur Automobiles, Delhi Road, Hisar by paying Rs.1,40,000/- and also paid Rs.8500/- for carrying the vehicle through Crain and in this way, the complainant had to spent total Rs.2,82,500/- on the repair of his vehicle.  It is further alleged that the complainant has applied for the claim of insurance with the OPs by supplying all the documents and the OP Company has surveyed the vehicle in question.  It is further alleged that after completing all the formalities and despite several requests, the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 1.8.2014 through his counsel Shri Sanjay Sharma, but the OPs have refused to pay the claim of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant was done by an authorized agent/person of the OP No. 1 within the jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, this Forum has the Jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint.  It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of OPs, complainant has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment & financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs and filed the contested written statement on behalf of the OP No. 1 and contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because insurance policy was issued by the Agra branch and OP No.2 has no concern with the matter involved in the present complaint and has been impleaded as party only to cover the jurisdiction of District Forum, otherwise there is least truth that OP No. 2 is/was authorized agent of the answering OP.  It is further alleged that the accident has taken place in District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).  It is admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP No. 1 for Rs.24 lacs.  It is further alleged that OP received intimation with regard to alleged damage of the vehicle from the complainant vide letter 29.7.2013 and it was mentioned that accident has taken place 5 kilometer away from Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) and after that OP No. 1 has deputed Jahir Ahmad Khan, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to assess the loss.  It is further alleged that final survey was conducted by Surveyor of Hisar and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,82,308/- and after receipt of survey report, the answering OP has sent letter dated 1.11.2013 to the complainant and sought clarification with regard to mode of accident, as he has mentioned different cause of accident in two separate claim forms submitted by him with OP No. 1.  It is further alleged that the complainant has mentioned in claim form that the vehicle was empty at the time of accident, whereas he has submitted copy of royalty challan.  It is further alleged that a reminder dated 9.11.2013 was also sent to the complainant, but he failed to clarify the quarries made by the OP No. 1.  It is further alleged that the competent authority of the OP No. 1 after due application of mind and papers available on the file has closed the file of the complainant as no claim and intimation in this regard has been sent vide letter dated 18.11.2013 to the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C11 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record documents Annexure R1 to R7 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the Forum at Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction as he has got insured his from OP No. 2 authorized agent of the OP No. 1 at Loharu, so he is entitled to get his claim and compensation. He further contended that the OP wrongly and illegally repudiated his claim, so it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.                In our view the arguments of ld. Counsel for complainant has no merit at all, because the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that how Forum at Bhiwani has got territorial jurisdiction. It has come in evidence that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy from OP No.1 at Agra and accident occurred in the area of Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).  So, the cause of action arisen either at Agra from where the vehicle was got insured or at Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) where accident had taken place.

8.                 From the perusal of the Sub-Section of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is clear that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint, as the complainant had obtained insurance policy from OP No.1 at Agra.  It appears that the complainant has impleaded OP No. 2 as party in the present complaint mainly to create territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, section 11 of C. P. Act does not confer right that complainant can file complaint at a place where he resides.  Even, no documentary evidence has been placed on file to prove that the vehicle in question was insured from OP No. 2 at Loharu (Agent of OP No.1). It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.2, Loharu has been added only to prove territorial jurisdiction.  Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because no cause of action has arisen in District Bhiwani. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Soni Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) has also held that the expression ‘branch office’ in the Act means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting if the complainant is allowed to file complaint anywhere in India where the branch office of the complainee is situated No contrary law has been shown by ld. Counsel for the complainant, so the Consumer Forum at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

9.                Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, if complainant chooses to file a complaint before the appropriate Forum, this dismissal would not come in the way and complainant may seek exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act. It was so held in Laxmi Engg. Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute-II (1995) CPJ-I Supreme Court.  Certified copies of the order be provided to both the parties, free of costs. The file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 28.01.2019.                 

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.