Delhi

East Delhi

CC/278/2024

LATA MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT KUMAR

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/278/2024
( Date of Filing : 27 Jun 2024 )
 
1. LATA MITTAL
R/O M-17/B-3, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-95.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
AGGARWAL PRESTIGE TOWER, III RD, PLOT NO-2, ROAD NO-44, MAIN ROAD, DELHI-25
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA PRESIDENT
  RAVI KUMAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 22 Jul 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 278/2024

 

 

Mrs. Lata Mittal

W/o Lt. Sh. Naresh Mittal

R/o. M-17/B-3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.

 

 

 ….Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Aggarwal Prestige Tower, 3rd Floor, Plot No.-2, Road No.-44, Main Road, Delhi-110025.

 

……OP

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

CC No.           278/2024

Date:-             22.07.2024

Present:-        Sh. Mohit Mittal Advocate for Complainant

 

Order on Admission

 

Heard on the jurisdiction aspect as complainant is resident of Dilshad Garden which falls under North East area. As far as OP1 is concerned its address has not been given in the memo of parties but address of branch office of OP at Vikas Marg is given. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP interalia stating that the OP had given Group Credit Secure Plus policy for the period of five years to the complainant w.e.f. 21.09.2020 upto 20.09.2025 but meanwhile the husband of the complainant Sh. Naresh Kumar Mittal suffered from ailment/sudden attack in December 2022 and ultimately after prolonged ailment expired on 03.12.2023 and when the wife of the complainant/insured approached the OP for the purpose of insurance benefit the claim was declined by citing the reason that the death was caused due to sickness which is beyond the scope of the coverage of the policy and he has filed the present complaint case.

The Commission has specifically enquired as to how the jurisdiction has been vested in this Commission as merely having one of the branch office of OP at Vikas Marg, Delhi does not create jurisdiction by itself as some part of ‘cause of action’ must have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission where the complaint case has been filed. Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that complainant had gone for the treatment within the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore the same can be a cause of action for the purpose of deficiency of services. The Commission is of the opinion that by taken treatment cannot be cause of action against the OP/insurance company as apparently & admittedly the hospital where treatment has been taken by the complainant is not a party in the complaint nor any deficiency has been alleged against treating hospital.

Now coming to the argument on the ground the OP is having a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court the authority to deal with a particular case.  If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of that case.  Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.  In this regard, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar v. Jagdish Dadaji Bind (supra) has laid down that delay cannot be condoned if the court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter.

In Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 the issue w.r.t. branch office was discussed & it was held that issue w.r.t. branch office is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as-

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh”.

Therefore the Commission is of the opinion that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file before the appropriate Court/Commission jurisdiction.

Copy of the complaint be retained and the copy so retained be consigned to record room.  

 

 
 
[ SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ RAVI KUMAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.