DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.218/2024
Sachin Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Ravidas
R/o Plot No.1734, Ground Floor,
Block-A, Ph-2, Holambi Kalan,
Metro Vihar, North East
Delhi-110082
….Complainant
Versus
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Its Director/Manager
Office at; A-32, 2nd Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-II
Near Lajpat Nagar Metro Station,
New Delhi-110024
Also at
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Its Director/Manager
Office at; E-8, EPIP, Sitapura,
Industrial Area,
Jaipur, Rajasthan -302022
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.08.2024
Date of Order : 15.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Ravi Kumar for complainant.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
The matter is at initial stage.
1. Complainant’s case is that complainant’s e-rickshaw was duly insured with Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Currency period of the policy is 18.01.2024 to 17.01.2025. The said vehicle was hypothecated which was stolen on 01.02.2024 during the subsistence of the policy. After registration of the FIR, complainant approached the Insurance Company and submitted the requisite documents for approval of his claim. However the same was rejected stating that the complainant had left the key in the vehicle which is gross negligence.
2. It is noticed that the complainant resides in North West Delhi. The policy was issued from Gurgaon, Haryana. The subject vehicle was stolen from Khajuri Khas, North East Delhi. Complainant is unable to show any cause of action that has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
3. Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides as under -
34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, —
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.
4. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that the clause of Territorial Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
5. It was clarified that the commission can entertain the complaint where the “branch office” of OP is situated, only if the cause of action had also arisen in that branch office . Mere existence of branch office would not confer jurisdiction.
6. The Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.458/2017 titled as Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Bansal & Ors, decided on 21.12.2017 has held that-
…it can safely be said that for the purpose of consumer complaints, relating to normal contracts for service and/or goods, cause of action arises inter-alia at any of the places, where;
(a) the contract is made; and/or
(b) where acceptance of the contract is communicated and/or
(c) where the contract is performed or is to be performed and/or
(d) where money under the contract is either payable or paid and/or
(e) where repudiation of the contract is received if any.
7. Hon’ble NCDRC took a similar view in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627.
8. The complainant is unable to show any cause of action that has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission therefore this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint . Complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
