ORDER AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Venkanagouda against the Area Manger, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 3,69,000/- with interest towards repair charges of his vehicle bearing No. KA-36/A-5868 with other relief’s as noted in the prayer column of this complaint, as his Insurance Policy is in force as on the date of the accident.<br /> <br /> 2. This case is posted for hearing on the admission of this complaint for the first time on 22-01-10 on that day the learned advocate for complainant prays time for to submit his arguments regarding admission of this complaint, accordingly we have posted this case on 08-02-10, but on that day the learned advocate for complainant remained absent, any how we have adjourned this case to 11-02-10 for hearing on the admission. This case called out on 11-02-10 the learned advocate for complainant remained absent. But filed two applications in the office on 10-02-10, as such we have adjourned this case for to hear on the applications and on the admission of this complaint to 16-02-10. On 16-02-10 this case called out for two different timings, neither complainant present nor his advocate present at that time, no one represented the case of complainant, in view of the absence of the complainant and his advocate we have taken that complainant has no arguments to be advanced on the admission of this complaint and also on the two applications filed by him on 10-02-10.<br /> <br /> 3. Perused the facts noted in the complaint as well as the facts noted in two IAs. In-view of the circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has made out a cause of action against opposite Area Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Area Office, Raichur to admit this complaint and to proceed with the case.? <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant has made out proper sufficient and good grounds to allow two applications filed by him.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 5. As already stated by us, this complaint is filed by the complainant U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Area Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur by making certain allegations for non payment of repair charges of his Lorry bearing No. KA-36/A-5868 even though the accident took place at the life time of the Insurance Policy issued by opposite. We have perused the facts pleaded in the complaint which reveals that, the alleged accident of his Lorry bearing No. KA-36/A-5868 took place at Horathbyala of Kustagi Taluka, Koppal District, he not pleaded as to how this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter, the learned advocate for complainant remained absent on all the dates without clarifying this aspect of the case. The complainant also not pleaded as to how and when the cause of action arose to him to file this complaint against Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Area Office, Raichur. This aspect also not clarified by the complainant by remaining absent. <br /> <br /> 6. It appears to us that, the complainant intentionally avoided to plead the facts related to territorial jurisdiction and also with regard to cause of action arose to him to file this complaint against Insurance Company. We have noticed the copy of the letter written by the complainant to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Raichur dt. 31-07-09 filed by the complainant to built up his cause of action without pleadings to that effect, the said letter was addressed to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Raichur which is a different organization from Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur who is opposite of this case. Hence the said letter of the complainant, not creating any kind of cause of action to this complaint to file this complaint against Insurance Company. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Raichur is nothing to do with Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur from which he took policy. The other documents relied by the complainant are not creating any kind of cause of action against Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant without cause of action against Insurance Company and thereby it is not fit complaint to admit, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 7. Admittedly, the complainant filed two applications dt. 08-02-10 and 10-02-10 in the office without affixing required Advocates Welfare Fund Stamps. However, we have gone through the said applications. One application was filed by him for to implead the proposed opposite No-2 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sitapur, Rajasthan State. Another one application is filed for to amend the cause title of the complaint. In the affidavit filed along with these two applications, he not revealed the lacuna of the complaint as stated while dealing with Point No-1, simply he stated that, the Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sitapur, is required to be brought on record as opposite No-2. Surprisingly he affixed one copy of the letter dt. 27-01-10 addressed to Area Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur and Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sitapur, Jaipur Rajasthan by serving it to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., on 27-01-10, but this complaint was filed by him on 21-01-10. In view of the facts, complainant cannot create new cause of action by issuing a letter dt. 27-01-10, after filing his complaint before this Forum on 21-01-10, in view of the facts, we cannot hold that, there is cause of action against proposed opposite No-2. Hence these two applications are not maintainable and fit for dismissal, accordingly we answered Point No-2 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 8. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant is rejected. Consequently the two applications of complainant dt. 08-02-10 are also dismissed as not maintainable.<br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-02-10)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br />