Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/115/2024

M/S HANSON PAINTS & COATING - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 115/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	M/s Hanson Paints & Coating Unit No. 11, 150/12/2, 18,19/1, Revenue Estate, Ismailla II B, Sampla, Haryana Through its Proprietor Mr. Hanuman Prasad Kharakia	Complainant
	Versus
	The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Delhi Regional Office II, 10th Floor, Core 1,Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi-110092 The Regional Manager	Opposite Party

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency in services towards Complainant.
2. The perusal of complaint reveals that the Complainant namely Sh. Hanuman Prasad is a proprietor of paint manufacturing unit under the name of M/s Hanson Paints & Coating functioning at Rohtak, Haryana. The subject policy has been issued by Opposite Party i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd in the name of M/s Hanson Paints & Coating as insured. The policy covers loss arising out of interalia Fire, lightening and flood etc. The Complainant states that due to heavy storm and continuous rainfall boundary wall of the insured factory collapsed. Upon lodging of claim, survey was conducted by Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party who submitted NO CLAIM  Report. On the basis of the report, Opposite Party has repudiated the claim. On being aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the present complaint praying for the insurance claim and compensation.
3. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint heard. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that Delhi regional office-II of the Opposite Party is situated at Laxmi Nagar District Center, Delhi-110092, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so this District Commission was competent to adjudicate the matter.
4. In the present case, as per memo of parties, Complainant is the proprietor of paint manufacturing unit under the name of M/s Hanson Paints & Coating functioning at Rohtak, Haryana. The perusal of the file reveals that the subject policy was issued from the office of the Opposite Party Insurance Company at Amroha, U.P. insuring the Complainant Proprietor firm which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The present complaint is regarding claim for Loss due to incident of Heavy storm and rainfall occurred in Rohtak, Haryana where the factory situated.
5.  On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 passed on 20/10/2009 wherein it has been held as follows:-

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. In out opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17 (2) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the Ld. 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 sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”

 

6. Perusal of the file shows that the Complainant have failed to place on record any document which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose from the office of the Opposite Party at Rohtak, Haryana. Hence, neither the Complainant nor the Opposite Party   or the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.
7. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of above authority.
8. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the Complainant along with annexures, if any, against acknowledgment. A copy of the same be retained for records. The Complainants may file the complaint in the Commission of competent territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. Complaint is accordingly, disposed of in above terms.
9. Order announced on 12.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)              Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)               President