Haryana

Karnal

CC/496/2019

Gulab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Saluja

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 496 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.05.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:16.06.2022

 

Gulab Singh son of Shri Rajpal, resident of village Bibipur Jattan, tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, registered and Corporate office, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, 302022, Rajasthan, through its authorized signatory.

 

2.     Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO no.410, 1^st floor, Old Mughal Canal Complex, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri Manish Saluja, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of a Harvester Combine Machine (Diesel) Model 2015 bearing registration no.HR-75-A-3547. The complainant purchased the said combine for cultivation of land and said harvester is only source of income of complainant. The said combine was got insured by the complainant from OPs, vide policy no.102017/31/19/007271, valid from 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019 by paying premium amount of Rs.13,273/-. It is averred that while going to Chhattisgarh alongwith said harvester combine for harvesting the crop, on 12.11.2018 when complainant reached near village Archara, within the area of Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, then suddenly one unattended animal came across in front of Harvester Combine, and while trying to save said animal, suddenly said Harvester Combine had fallen in a chasm, however no person has received any injury in such accident, but the aforesaid Harvester combine has suffered a lot of damages and breakages. Thereafter, on 13.11.2018 complainant intimated the OPs about the said accident immediately and complainant also got report about the said accident in nearest Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham, Chhattishgarh, vide serial no.65/2018 dated 14.11.2018. On 16.11.2018, OP instructed the complainant to shift the damaged vehicle to the nearest garage and confirm the address with the estimate so that OPs may appoint the surveyor for assessment of the loss. However, on 27.11.2018 complainant received a letter dated 15.11.2018 in this regard. On the instruction of the OP, complainant himself had shifted the said Harvester Combine at Vishal Agricultural Works, near New Grain Market, Samana, District Patiala by getting transportation services of New Ballu Roadways, 1^st floor, opposite Vikrant Batteries, Ring Road no.2 Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and paid freight charges to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/-, vide receipt no.1153 dated 16.11.2018.  Prior to shifting damaged Harvester Combine personal physical on spot inspection was also conducted by concerned Surveyor Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta of the company of OPs. After shifting the said Harvester Combine in abovesaid workshop, the concerned Mechanical had prepared estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.9,46,000/- and after that complainant intimated in this regard to OPs, which was approved by the concerned Surveyor Mr. K.P.S.Obroi by way of telephonic message. On this complainant instructed to Vishal Agricultural Works for repair of insured vehicle, and under instruction of the complainant said workshop repaired the vehicle as per satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times to pay the bills of repair, but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly vide letter dated 19.01.2019 OPs refused to pay the abovesaid amount to complainant on the wrong and illegal ground of that the route permit was not valid at the time of accident. Thereafter, under compelling circumstances, complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,25,636/- to said Vishal Agricultural Works, vide  bill no.126 and 127 dated 06.02.2019. Thereafter, complainant tried to get claim amount of Rs.7,60,636/- (including freight charges) from the OPs but did not pay any claim. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.04.2019 to the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant was not considered as the vehicle was not driven as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and there was clear cut violations of the terms of policy. The accident allegedly taken place on 12.11.2018, at the material time of alleged accident the vehicle was being driven without valid permit from authorities. The claim was not considered by the OPs as there was serious violation of policy condition and Section 84 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The attitude of the complainant for getting the claim processed was always non-cooperative and formalities required by the OPs was not complied by him with the surveyor, for this letter and telephonic intimation was given to complainant. The surveyor assessed claim to the tune of Rs.5,94,050/- but same cannot be paid to the insured as there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The claim closure letter/repudiation letter was dispatched to complainant on 19.01.2019 mentioning therein “on perusal of the same we have observed that at the time of accident your route permit was not valid”. It is further pleaded that the this Forum now Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as no cause of action, if any, has arisen in favour of complainant against OPs at Karnal. The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), DDR was lodged on that place. Further the policy was issued from Yamuna Nagar. The vehicle was parked and repaired at Samana District, Patiala. As such nothing material happened within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum now Commission. Further, it has not been mentioned how the jurisdiction of this Forum now Commission has been invoked, only by residence of complainant, the jurisdiction of this Forum now Commission cannot be invoked. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC of the vehicle in question Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DDR dated 14.11.2018 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 15.11.2018 Ex.C4, copy of transpiration service Ex.C5, copy of estimate of claim Ex.C6, copy of bill of Rs.2,12,046/- dated 06.02.2019 Ex.C7, copy of  e-way bill dated 07.02.2019 Ex.C8, copy of bill of Rs.4,13,590/-  dated 06.02.2019 Ex.C9, copy of  e-way bill dated 06.02.2019 Ex.C10, copy of rejection letter Ex.C11, copy of envelope of letter dated 19.01.2019 Ex.C12,  copy of legal notice Ex.C13, copy of postal receipt Ex.C14 and Ex.C15, copy of AD dated 18.04.2019 Ex.C16, copy of envelope Ex.C17, copy of legal notice AD Ex.C18, copy of letter by insurance company Ex.C19, copy of postal receipt Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 23.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Praveen Kumar Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of letter dated 19.01.2019 Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 15.11.2018 Ex.OP2, claim closure sheet Ex.OP3, photos of vehicle in question Ex.OP4 and OP5, insurance policy Ex.OP6, certificate-cum-policy schedule Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 06.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

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

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his Harvester Combine with the OPs.  The said Harvester Combine met with an accident in the area of Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh during the subsistence of the insurance policy. On the instruction of the OPs, complainant shifted the said Harvester Combine at Vishal Agricultural Works, near New Grain Market, Samana, District Patiala for repair from the accidental spot and paid freight charges to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/-. Thereafter, complainant spent Rs.6,25,636/-  on the repair of the vehicle in question. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs for disbursement of the said amount of Rs.7,60,636/- (including freight charges) from the OPs but OPs did not pay any claim and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that that the claim of the complainant was not considered as the vehicle was not driven as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was being driven without valid permit from authorities. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 19.01.2019 on the ground that at the time of accident the route permit was not valid. He further argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as no cause of action, if any, has arisen in favour of complainant against OPs at Karnal. The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), DDR was lodged on that place. Further the policy was issued from Yamuna Nagar. The vehicle was parked and repaired at Samana District, Patiala. As such nothing material happened within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

11.           OP has taken a plea that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

12.            Without going into merits on the complaint, firstly we decided the question whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint or not?

13.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was got insured by the complainant at District Yamuna Nagar. The vehicle in question met with an accident near village Archara, within the area of Police Station Kukdoor, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). The accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted the vehicle was got repaired at Samana, District Patiala, Punjab. In view of the above, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Only branch office of  of the Insurance company situated at Karnal, does not make that cause of action has arisen at Karnal. In this regard we rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as  Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 379  this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint merely for the reason that one of the branch office of Karnal.

14.           Keeping in view that the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the court of the competent jurisdiction as per provisions of law and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:16.06.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

               

                (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                           Member