Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:- The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking payment of Rs.9,01,226/- being the value of the vehicle AP07 TU 1959; Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 07 TU 1959. The complainant obtained National permit for carrying goods. The complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite parties when their agents came to Guntur. The opposite party issued a cover note initially and subsequently the policy bearing No.3003/58720940/00/B00 and the said policy covered the period from 11-02-10 to 10-02-11. The said vehicle while returning from Ahmedabad with a parcel load to Chennai met with an accident near Aurangabad of Maharashtra State. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties after accident. The opposite parties at Aurangabad appointed surveyors who inturn inspected the vehicle, estimated loss and submitted a report to the opposite parties. On 18-02-11 the opposite parties informed that the complainant has no insurable interest on the date of accident i.e., on 05-11-11 as the said vehicle was sold to one N. Balasowri Reddy. The Ombudsman also dismissed complainant’s claim on 14-11-11. The repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is not as per the procedure established by law or as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiation is therefore not correct. Registration certificate of the said vehicle and policy stood in the name of the complainant. The complainant authorized the said Balasowri Reddy to look after claims of the complainant as power of attorney. The complainant was put to mental agony and suffered financial loss on account of repudiation of claim by the opposite parties which amounted to deficiency of service. The complainant estimated his sufferings at Rs.15,000/-. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:
The complaint is barred by time. The complainant sold the questioned vehicle on 11-02-10 much before the date of accident and as such had no insurable interest. The complaint is guilty of suppression of material facts. The insurance ombudsman dismissed the grievance of the complainant. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service as rightly repudiated the claim. Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented for the purpose of the case. The complaint therefore be dismissed.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite party.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Whether the opposite parties repudiated the claim on untenable grounds and if so amounted to deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- To what relief?
6. Admitted facts in this case are these:
a. The complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite parties who in turn issued the policy (Ex.A-6=B1).
b. The complainant approached the insurance ombudsman, Hyderabad who in turn rejected complainant’s claim (Ex.A-8).
c. The opposite parties repudiated the claim on 18-02-11 (Ex.A-7=B3).
d. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor and submitted a report (Ex.B-4).
7. POINT NO.1:- Ex.A-7(=B3) revealed that the opposite parties repudiated the claim on 18-02-11. The complaint is well in time as filed on 09-05-12. We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.
8. POINT No.2:- The opposite parties are shown as residing at Hyderabad and Mumbai. Under those circumstances, the registry took an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint. The complainant represented “As part of the transaction taken place at Guntur where the opposite party’s agents came and received premium from the complainant, hence part of the transaction taken place at Guntur for that no documentary proof is available as such this Hon’ble Forum has got territorial jurisdiction”. Basing on such endorsement and after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant this Forum registered it, prima-facie assuming territorial jurisdiction.
9. The complainant in para 3(a) mentioned that he insured the vehicle with the opposite parties when their agents came to Guntur and issued a cover note sent by the opposite parties. The complainant in para (4) while discussing cause of action also mentioned that cause of action for the complainant arose when the complainant insured his vehicle when agents of the opposite parties at Guntur came to his house and issued cover note and subsequently issued a policy.
10. A complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises as envisaged under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The said contention of the complainant is having considerable force if established that part of transaction took place at Guntur. The 1st opposite party was shown as residing at Dilshukhnagar, Hyderabad and the 2nd opposite party is the head office at Mumbai. The averments in paragraphs 3(a) and (4) revealed that the agents of the opposite parties issued cover note at Guntur. In Ex.A-6=B1 policy agency code, agency name and agents mobile number were mentioned. The complainant neither filed cover note nor mentioned that the agency particulars mentioned in the insurance policy belonged to an agent of opposite parties stationed at Guntur. In the absence of such particulars one has to presume that no part of cause of action took place at Guntur and therefore the complaint has to be filed either at Hyderabad or Mumbai where the opposite parties residing or Aurangabad where part of cause of action i.e., accident took place. We therefore opine that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
11. POINTS 3 & 4:- In view of findings on point No.2, we are of the opinion that no finding need be given on them. We therefore answer these points accordingly.
12. POINT No.5:- In view of findings on Point no.2, returning the complaint for presentation before the proper Forum will meet ends of justice.
In the result the complaint is returned for presentation before the proper Forum. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 1st day of March, 2013.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.No | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | - | Copy of certificate of registration of the lorry bearing No.AP 07TU 1959 |
A2 | 12-02-10 | Copy of National permit for goods carriage |
A3 | - | Copy of FORM 38 certificate of fitness |
A4 | - | Copy of driving license of the driver of the lorry |
A5 | 28-10-10 | Copy of receipt showing the payment of tax |
A6 | 11-02-10 | Copy of certificate cum policy issued by the opposite parties |
A7 | 18-02-11 | Copy of letter from opposite parties to complainant |
A8 | 14-11-11 | Copy of order of the insurance ombudsman |
A9 to 11 | - | Photographs (3) |
For opposite parties:
Ex.No | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | - | Copy of policy along with conditions |
B2 | - | Claim form submitted by B, Bala Sowri Reddy |
B3 | 18-02-11 | Copy of repudiation letter issued to complainant |
B4 | - | Copy of investigation report |
B5 | - | Copy of final survey report |
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.
