Per Sri A.Prabhakar Gupta, Member:-

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite parties to  pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. towards settlement of claim under policy No.417055/31/11/006854, and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are here under:

The factual matrix of the case is that the present complainant is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 7Y 3287.  The said lorry is having an insurance policy under policy No.417055/31/11/006854 which is in force from                 30-10-10 to 29-10-11.   

While that is so, the present complainant gave his oral consent to one Ch.Venkateswarlu, for the sale of said vehicle and gave the vehicle to him to maintain the same, till he got transfer in his name, with the Road Transport Authorities. 

While that is so, the said Sri.Ch.Venkateswarlu sent the lorry to Maharashtra for transporting goods.  After unloading the goods the lorry got returned load of onions to be delivered at Visakhapatnam District.  While the lorry was proceeding to its destination, on 14-06-2011 an accident took place near by Tallapalem of Visakhapatnam District.  In the said accident the lorry was completely damaged.  Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu who was having control over the said lorry lodged a complainant with the Khasimkota police station of Visakhapatnam district.  Subsequently the present complainant submitted claim forms along with concerned documents to the opposite party on 14-09-2011.  As there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant made another representation on 13-10-11 requesting to settle the claim. The opposite party could not settle the claim as Ch.Venkateswarlu made a rival claim.  At last the present complainant issued a legal notice on 12-07-2012 for the settlement of insurance claim.  The opposite party received the same and kept quite.  As the original owner is having valid policy with him and the R.C. stood in his name, complainant is the right person to claim the policy amount irrespective of oral sale.  Since there is no settlement inspite of legal notice, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

3.      Opposite parties filed its version which is in brief as follows. 

          In reply to the complaint the opposite party filed its version denying all the allegations of the complainant.  Further, he relied on the facts which are described as follows : 

        1.  This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, since no cause of action arose within the local limits of this Hon’ble Forum. 

        2.   As the present complainant gave his consent to sell away the said vehicle to one Ch.Venkateswarlu who in turn lodged a complaint, the complainant is not having locus standi to file this complaint. 

        3. The complainant suppressed the material facts and approached this Forum with unclean hands and, prayed this Forum to dismiss the present complaint. 

4.     The complainant and the opposite parties filed their affidavits in support of their contentions.  To prove the case, the complainant filed 15 documents which were marked as Ex.A-1 to A-15.  No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.  

5.      Now the points for consideration. 

1.     Whether this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

         present complaint? 

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of services on the part of the opposite

         party?

3.     Whether the complainant is having locus standi to file the present

         Complaint, since the subject matter is under the control of third

          person Ch.Venkateswarlu? 

4.     To what relief?

6.  POINT NO.1:-  Opposite party was shown as residence at Vijayawada.  Ex.A-1 policy was issued at Vijayawada.  This Forum while numbering the complaint took an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.  For that the complainant submitted that the complainant and opposite parties are residence of Guntur jurisdiction.  The residence of complainant did not confirm jurisdiction on Forum. So as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act U/S.11(2) (c) complaint can be filed within the jurisdiction where the cause of action wholly or in part arose.  With this document getting of policy to be presumed from the Vijayawada office.  Further in Ex.A-6 it was mentioned that the accident took place near by Tallapalem junction, Khasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam district, and so, a criminal case was lodged in that police station for appropriate action.  So, in the absence of jurisdiction, this Forum cannot entertain the present complaint.  This view has been taken from a case, Bank of India Vs UAN Raju reported in 2004(1) ALD577 wherein their Lordship held that defect of jurisdiction in a suit or complaint strikes at the authority of the court to pass any order, and such defect with regard to jurisdiction either territorial or pecuniary cannot be cured even by the consent of both parties.  So this Forum feels that the complainant has to take shelter before appropriate Forum. 

7.  Since no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum, we are of the view that this Forum not having territorial jurisdiction.  In these circumstances returning the complaint for presenting before proper Forum will meet ends of justice.  Hence the complaint is returned.  Accordingly this point is answered.

8.      POINT Nos.2,3 & 4 :- As point No.1 with regard to jurisdiction decided against the complainant, this Forum not discussed about the merits and demerits of the case. 

9.      In the result the complaint is returned with a direction that the complaint has to be filed before the proper Forum since no cause of action arose within the local limits of this Forum. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 28^th day of March, 2013.

MEMBER                                     MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: - NIL

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT     

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.