DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
1. Consumer Complaint No.630 of 2015
Date of institution: 23.11.2015 Date of decision : 22.03.2017
Rajinder Parshad Pandey son of Shiv Ram Pandey resident of # No.6608-A, Sector 56, Near Government High School, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Branch Office, SCO 101-102, 1st Floor, Phase-11, SAS Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj) 302 022 through its Chief Regional Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
2. Consumer Complaint No.631 of 2015
Date of institution: 23.11.2015 Date of decision : 22.03.2017
Rajinder Parshad Pandey son of Shiv Ram Pandey resident of # No.6608-A, Sector 56, Near Government High School, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Branch Office, SCO 101-102, 1st Floor, Phase-11, SAS Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj) 302 022 through its Chief Regional Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaints under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri A.L. Punder, counsel for the complainants.
Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Rajinder Parshad Pandey has filed two complaints against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Both these complaints are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these complaints. The brief facts of the complaint No.631 are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased Sartaj Swaraj Mazda Model 2006 G.V.W. Truck bearing Registration No.PB-11-BK-0977 by raising loan from M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh for earning his livelihood by self employment. The complainant had been purchasing GCCV Public Carriers Other Than Three Wheelers Package Policy through OP No.1 and it was renewed for the period 24.02.2015 to 23.02.2016 for which renewal premium of Rs.20,562/- was paid by the complainant. The aforesaid truck No.PB-11-BK-0977 was also insured under this policy comprehensively for I.D.V. of Rs.2,73,000/-. Besides the coverage of truck in question, the policy also extended to cover under GR 36 A –P.A. for Owner Driver and LL to Paid Driver and charged extra premium of Rs.100/- for PA cover and Rs.50/- for paid driver. Unfortunately on 18.04.2015 at about 2 P.M. when the truck was driven by its driver namely Akhilesh Kumar accompanied with complainant reached at Bareilly (UP) at outer area under P.S. Izzat Nagar, Janpath Bareilly (UP) for un-loading consignment of M/s. Jagat Pharma, 23-B Ekta Nagar, Bareilly which was sent by M/s. B.M. Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd., Sector 82, Mohali. The truck was also carrying truck load of another consignee M/s. Allengers (P) Medical Equipment for Lucknow. The complainant asked the consignee who asked him to stay out of Bareilly as heavy vehicles are not allowed to enter in the market area and the consignment will be collected by shifting the consignment to some other private vehicle. The complainant asked the driver to take refreshment from market and the complainant stayed with the vehicle. In the meantime the consignee reached and they started unloading the truck. As soon as the unloading started, suddenly an A.C. Cylinder outburst and thrown out fire out of the cylinder and another cylinder placed nearby also burst resulting whole consignment and the truck caught fire all of sudden. Complainant also suffered burn injuries. The complainant was got admitted in a nearby private hospital and thereafter shifted to PGIMER, Chandigarh on 19.04.2015. The complainant approached OP No.1 through his representative and informed about the occurrence. The OP No.1 deputed its surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor was apprised about mishap and health condition of the complainant. Affidavit to this fact was handed over to the surveyor as well as to the financer of the vehicle. The complainant approached OP No.1 for lodging P.A. under the policy for owner who is covered under the policy for a sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- for which he paid extra premium of Rs.100/- but the claim of the complainant was even lodged. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 21.10.2015 to the OPs to send claim papers within 15 days but the OPs have not responded to the legal notice. Hence these complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of mishap i.e. 18.04.2015 till realisation; to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension, suffering and agony etc. and to pay him Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
Facts of Complaint No.630
In this complaint the complainant has stated that after receipt of information about the fire loss of consignment, truck and injuries to the complainant, the OPs deputed surveyor to assess the loss of truck in question. The complainant submitted all available documents with the surveyor and the complainant was informed by the surveyor that loss of Rs.1,45,557.50 has been assessed against the fire loss. OP No.2 vide letter dated 20.08.2015 followed by reminders dated 27.08.2015 and 03.09.2015 demanded certain papers for settlement of pending claim. The complainant submitted the required documents vide his letter dated 09.09.2015. However, the OPs have not yet settled his claim even after issuance of legal notice dated 21.10.2015 to the OPs. Hence, in this complaint the complainant has sought directions for the OPs to pay him Rs.1,45,557.50 as per surveyor’s report alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of report till realisation; to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension etc and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaints are contested by the OPs by filing written statements in both the complaints, in which it has been pleaded that the complaints are pre-mature as the complainant did not even lodge the claim for personal accident with the OPs and did not provide the requisite documents. The complaints are liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the accident/fire loss took place at Bareilly (UP) and the policy had been issued at Jaipur. The claims are processed and decided at Jaipur. Even the vehicle is registered at Patiala and the OPs are having no branch office at Mohali. The complainant has wrongly impleaded OP No.1 at the address of SCO No.101-102, Phase-11 Mohali whereas there is no branch office of Shriram General Insurance Ltd. at this address. The coverage of personal accident is for death, loss of limb and for permanent total disablement. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any of this loss within the scope of GR-36. The coverage of personal accident under the policy is provided Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle. However, the complainant in Para No.4 of the complaint has averred that the vehicle was driven by one Akhilesh Kumar. Thus, the complainant does not come under the definition of Owner Driver and, therefore, no coverage can be claimed by him. The complainant is not a consumer as the truck in question is a commercial vehicle. The complainant was also plying the vehicle without valid registration, without valid fitness and without road tax which are breaches of Motor Vehicle Act as well as terms of the policy. On merits also, the OPs have taken the similar pleas.
In addition to the above stand, the OPs have taken other pleas in complaint No.630 that this complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the vehicle is hypothecated/financed with Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, which is a necessary party. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant is also not consumer as the vehicle is a commercial one and has been got registered as such. The complainant has failed to produce the requisite documents and did not allow the OPs to decide the claim. The complainant was given several reminders but he failed to submit the documents. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of both the complaints.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. CW-1/1 qua damage to the vehicle and another qua personal accident Ex.CW-1/2 and another affidavit Ex.CW-1/3; copies of RC Ex.C-1; insurance schedule Ex.C-2; bill Ex.C-3; Consignment note Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5; Fire Brigade Report Ex.C-6; DDR Ex.C-7; consent form Ex.C-8; discharge and follow up card Ex.C-9; affidavit Ex.C-10; legal notice Ex.C-11; original postal receipts Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13; five photographs Ex.C-14 and driving license Ex.C-15. In rebuttal, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavits of Arvinder Sharma, Legal Officer Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2; copies of policy certificate Ex.OP-1; policy wording Ex.OP-2; RTI information Ex.OP-3; forwarding letter Ex.OP-4; reply to the RTI Ex.OP-5; postal envelope Ex.OP-6; RTI to MC, Mohali Ex.OP-7; reply Ex.OP-8; envelope Ex.OP-9; RTI dated 16.06.2016 Ex.OP-10; postal receipt Ex.OP-11 and GR Rules Ex.OP-12.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that besides the coverage of truck in question, the policy also extended to cover under GR 36 A –P.A. for Owner Driver and LL to Paid Driver and charged extra premium of Rs.100/- for PA cover and Rs.50/- for paid driver. However, the OPs have not paid him the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,45,557.50 as per surveyor’s report under the policy despite repeated visits of the representative of the complainant and issuance of legal notice.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that before deciding the complaint on merits, the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and decide the complaint be decided. Learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the OPs do not have any office at Mohali within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135 elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under;
“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 learned 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.”
Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, Revision petition No.2290 of 2012 decided on 19/2/2013 and in another case M/s.Stan Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.9.2013, the view taken was that the jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of OP.
8. As regards to the facts of the present complaints, the incident in question took place at Bareilly. The truck was got insured from the Jaipur office of the OPs. The truck is registered with registering authority at Patiala. No cause of action to the complainant has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaints. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we direct that the complaints be returned to the complainant with liberty to seek redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Court/Fora having territorial jurisdiction.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the files be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 22.03.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
