Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/132/2014

Darbara singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tatya Aig Gen insu - Opp.Party(s)

Parkash singh

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum
Fatehgarh Sahib,
 
Complaint Case No. CC/132/2014
 
1. Darbara singh
Darbara singh age 52 yrs so Late sh raunak singh ro vill chadiala post office and teh FGS
FGS
Pb
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Tatya Aig Gen insu
Tatya Aig Gen insu comp LTD third floor aggarwal prestige mall plot no 2 road no44 near m2k cinema rani bagh pitampur new delhi
new delhi
new delhi
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ajit Pal Singh Rajput PRESIDENT
  Smt Veena Chahal Member
 
For the Complainant:
Sh Ts Kang Adv cl complainant
 
For the Opp. Party:
Sh DPs ANand Adv op no 1
None for the op no 2
 
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

 

C.C. No. CC/132 of 30.9.2014

Decided on: 11.03.2015

 

Dalbara Singh aged about 60 years son of Late Sh.Raunak Singh, resident of village Chadiala, Post Office and Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, State Punjab Pin code 140407.

 

……..Complainant


 

Versus


 

  1. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301308, 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, District Ludhiana Phone No.0161-602000,6622000.

..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14

of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

 

Present : Sh.T.S.Kang,counsel for the complainant.

Sh.D.P.S.Anand,counsel for Op no.1.

None for Op no.2.


 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

1. The ld. counsel for the complainant has filed an application for withdrawing the present complaint due to technical defect, as the complainant inadvertently did not implead Dada Motors, Khamano. The ld. counsel for the OP no.1 objected to the said application and stated that the complainant can avail the remedy under Order I,Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the aforesaid branch. The ld. counsel for the OP no.1 prayed that the present application be dismissed.

2. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties alongwith documents placed on record. We are not persuaded to agree with the submissions of the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 as the provisions of the C.P.C are not strictly applicable to The Consumer Protection Act. As per the documents available on record, it has come to our notice that the Temporary Certificate of Registration was issued by OP no.2 at Ludhiana on 28.06.2013 and the Policy was also issued on 28.06.2013, the relevant contents of the said policy are reproduced below:-

Dealer Name:DADA MOTORS PVT, LTD. LUDHIANA. In witness whereof this policy has been signed at LUDHIANA this 28 day of June 02.24:54PM”

The aforesaid documents reveal that the said policy was issued at Ludhiana and this fact has been admitted by OP no.1 & 2 in their written statements. The complainant with regard to the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction has mentioned in Para no.9 & 11 the same is reproduced below;

Para no.9: That the cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint on 25.5.2014 when the vehicle in question was stolen from the parking of Gurduwara Sahib Fatehgarh Sahib and now a last week then the opposite party totally refused to issue the full insurance claim of the said vehicle. Hence this complaint is being filed without any reasonable delay.

Para no.11: That the complainant is residing at village Chadiala, Tehsil Khamano District Fatehgarh Sahib, and the same was insured with DADA Motors branch Khamano and vehicle in question was stolen from the parking of Gurudwara at F.G.S. and the FIR has been lodged at P.S. F.G.S., which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence this Hon’ble Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

3. In view of the abovesaid para’s, the complainant has preferred to file the present complaint before this Forum, as his vehicle in question was stolen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.The complainant has also stated that this Forum has the jurisdiction because complainant resides within jurisdiction of this Forum, as the policy was issued by DADA Motors Kamano and FIR was got registered within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.We do not find any force in the pleadings of the complainant.It is quite evident from the documents and the written statements of the OPs that the said vehicle was purchased from Ludhiana and the Policy was also issued from Ludhiana. Merely because the said vehicle was stolen, FIR was lodged and branch office of Dada Motors is situated at Fatehgarh Sahib will not entitle the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum. Moreover as per Section 11(2) of the Act the present complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135 has 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;“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. [vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]”

In the case of Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, passed by Hon’ble National Commission in 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. In all the abovesaid judgments the view taken by the Hon’ble Courts are that jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of OP.

5. As a result of our above discussion and the case law, it is held that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant, so that the complainant can seek the redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction. Complainant is also entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. A copy of the complaint be retain.

 

(Veena Chahal) (A.P.S.Rajput)

Member President/11.03.2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ajit Pal Singh Rajput]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Smt Veena Chahal]
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.