Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/241

Dalbara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Sabharwal Adv.

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                      C.C. No:241 of 10.04.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:22.04.2015

Dalbara Singh, aged about 60 years son of late Sh.Raunak  Singh, resident of village Chadiala, Post Office & Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034, through its authorized signatory.

2.Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dholewal Chowk, Savitri Complex, Ludhiana.

                   Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.                        

         

Present:      Sh.Anand Sabherwal, Adv. for complainant.

 

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that Sh.Dalbara Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034, through its authorized signatory and others (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) with the brief averments that the complainant has purchased the Tata Magic Model BS III 7+1 vehicle (four wheeler) from Dada Motors Khamanon District Fatehgarh Sahib for the sum of Rs.3,49,300/- and the same was financed from Tata Motor Finance Limited on 13.11.2013 as full insured vide policy No.0140121759 which was valid from 28.6.2013 to 27.6.2014 and the same was got registered with the District Transport Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib vide registration No.PB-23-M-4962, engine No.275ID106EWYSB7341, chassis No.MAT445117DVE41786 registered on 13.11.2013. Thereafter, the complainant had got the permit to use the said vehicle as commercial basis i.e.the complainant has spent the amount of Rs.25,000/- approximately as registration charges and permit charges etc. The abovesaid vehicle was purchased by the complainant to earn his livelihood. On 25.5.2014, the complainant was going on the abovesaid vehicle from his residence i.e. village Chadiala, Tehsil Khamanon , District Fatehgarh Sahib to Nabha for passenger of Amritsar, then at about 12:15 PM, the complainant stopped at Gurudwara Sahib at Fatehgarh Sahib for worship and parked the said vehicle in question in the vacant parking in front of the Gurudwara Sahib and same was locked. When after the worship, the complainant came back, then the said vehicle was not there, where he parked the same and the complainant tried his best to find out the same but the said vehicle was not traced, so the said vehicle had been stolen by unknown person. Immediately, the complainant reported the matter to the concerned police station i.e. Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib and the statement of the complainant was recorded and then the FIR No.90 dated 26.5.2014 u/s 379 was got registered in the P.S.Fatehgarh Sahib without any delay. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops to pay the full insured claim of the said vehicle as the same was fully insured with the said insurance company alongwith Rs.25,000/- i.e. the amount of registratioin of the said vehicle and permit etc., and the employee/detective of the company visited the residence of the complainant, who verified the matter and assured the complainant to issue the full insured claim while taking the required documents from the complainant. At the time of purchase/finance of vehicle in question, the concerned person/employee of OP2 at branch Khamanon issued insurance cover/policy regarding the abovesaid vehicle in favour of the complainant and assured that they are fully responsible for claim of any type in future. However, Ops have not provided the required services to the complainant. Rather, the Ops have totally refused to issue the full insured claim of the abovesaid vehicle of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as documents which have been placed on record by the complainant reveals that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from Dada Motors at Khamanon District Fatehgarh Sahib and theft of the vehicle in question had  also taken place outside the Gurudwara Sahib at Fatehgarh Sahib. Further, as per the contents of the complaint that FIR No.90 dated 26.5.2014 qua the theft of the vehicle in question was lodged at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib and the claim was repudiated by the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited having its office at New Delhi.

3.                So, it appears from the averments of the complaint that no cause of action or any part of cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Ludhiana. So, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

4.                Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pertains to jurisdiction of the District Forum to try and entertain the complaint, which provides as under:-

i)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

ii)A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum 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, actually and voluntarily 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 either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c)the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

5.                From the above provisions, we are of the opinion that no cause of action accrued wholly or in part to the complainant at Ludhiana and it appears that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

6.                So, in view of the above discussion, we do not admit the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable as the same is barred by jurisdiction and the same be returned to the complainant in original alongwith the documents and copy of this order free of costs. The copy of complaint alongwith photocopies of necessary documents and zymani order be retained in the office for record and thereafter, papers be consigned to the record room.

(Babita)                 (Sat Paul Garg)                   (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                    Member                             President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:22.04.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)