DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 601/2015
Date of Institution : 16.09.2015
Date of Decision : 12.05.2016
Baljinder Singh aged about 34 years son of Harbans Singh resident of Sekha Road, Street No. 5, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Ltd., Registered and Head Office at New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its Managing Director.
2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Ltd., Old Court road, Above Allahabad Bank, Mansa.
3. Vipan Singla son of Shri Raj Kumar Singla, Agent of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., resident of Street No. 4, K.C. Road, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. SS Bhullar counsel for complainant.
Sh. Vinay Kumar Jindal counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite party No. 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint against The New India Assurance Company Limited opposite party No. 1 and others ( (in short the opposite parties) under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short as Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. PB-19-H/9208 and he insured his truck through opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 inspected the truck of the complainant at Barnala before insuring the same and issued an insurance cover note at Barnala after receiving an amount of Rs. 36,550/- and thereafter insurance policy No. 36060231140100001125 for the period 17.7.2014 to 16.7.2015 was issued by the opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that on the night intervening 2/3rd April 2015 said truck met with an accident and overturned and was badly damaged and the matter was reported to the police authorities District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) on 3rd April 2015. It is further alleged that since the truck was badly damaged. Therefore, the complainant alleged the claim with the opposite party No. 2 and submitted all the relevant documents. It is further alleged that even after the period of more than 3 months the claim was not finalized and therefore the complainant served a legal notice dated 13.7.2015 upon the opposite parties through his counsel. Thereafter, the complainant received letter dated 28.7.2015 from opposite party No. 3 asking to submit certain documents. Then the complainant submitted the photocopy of the documents and also stated that the originals have already been submitted by the complainant while lodging the claim. It is alleged that thereafter a reply dated 6.8.2015 to the legal notice dated 13.7.2015 was given by the opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that the opposite party has failed to finalize the claim and his case falls within the definition of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To finalize the claim of the complainant by paying the amount of Rs. 6,31,777/-.
2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed the joint written statement taking preliminary objections on the grounds of jurisdiction, no cause of action, not coming to this Forum with clean hands, bad for non joinder of necessary parties, not a consumer and not maintainable.
4. On merits it is pleaded that the truck in question was insured with the opposite party under commercial vehicle package policy and the terms and conditions of the said policy were supplied to the complainant alongwith the insurance policy. It is further averred that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident of vehicle, the opposite party immediately deputed surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Lokesh Aggarwal for spot survey who conducted the survey on 2.4.2015 and the said surveyor submitted his report dated 4.4.2015. It is also averred that the opposite party also deputed surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Rishi Bhasin Proprietor of RP Bhasin and Company of Ludhiana to assess the loss and he submitted his final report dated 23.5.2015 alongwith documents and assessed the net loss of Rs. 1,85,936/- on repair basis subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy etc. It is further averred that the information regarding accident was given by Harbans Singh to police and answering opposite party. Harbans Singh is the father of the complainant. On 2.4.2015 father of the complainant also gave written information to surveyor at the time of the spot survey wherein father of the complainant stated that driver of the truck in question is admitted in hospital due to injuries in alleged accident and Amandeep Singh was the driver of the vehicle. It is further averred that despite repeated requests of the opposite parties the complainant failed to provide any medical record qua the injuries to the driver Amandeep Singh. It is further alleged that as per police report only alleged co-driver Avtar Singh was injured and the complainant was asked to supply driving license of Avtar Singh and injuries/hospital record of alleged driver Amandeep Singh. However, it is alleged that till today the complainant has not supplied any said documents and therefore the claim has not been finally decided by them till today. It is also alleged that at the time of accident alleged driver Amandeep Singh was not driving the vehicle in question and it seems that Avtar Singh was driving the truck in question because Avtar Singh is not having valid driving license so complainant intentionally replace the name of driver Amandeep Singh in place of Avtar Singh with the opposite party to get the claim. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 3 also filed the written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that complainant has no locus standi, that role of opposite party was only of a facilitator/agent of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and moreover under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act an agent can neither sue nor be sued. On merits the opposite party No. 3 has not given any specific reply but denied the allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice dated 13.7.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 28.7.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 8.8.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of postal receipt dated 8.8.2015 Ex.C-7, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C-8, copy of envelope containing reply of legal notice Ex.C-9, copy of invoice dated 12.5.2015 Ex.C-10, copy of invoice dated 16.5.2015 Ex.C-11, copy of estimate dated 18.4.2015 Ex.C-12, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-13, copy of application to police Station Ramdevra Ex.C-14, copy of driving license of driver Amandeep Singh Ex.C-15, affidavit of Karamjit Kumar Ex.C-16, affidavit of Jagtar Singh Tari Ex.C-17, copy of invoice dated 15.5.2015 Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of M. Dhawal Ex.OP-1.2/1, affidavit of Er. Lokesh Aggarwal Ex.OP-1.2/2, affidavit of Er. Rishi Bhasin Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of survey report dated 23.5.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of assessment sheet dated 23.5.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of photographs of damaged truck cabin Ex.OP-1.2/6 to Ex.OP-1.2/12, copy of survey report dated 4.4.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/13, copy of photographs Ex.OP-1.2/14 to Ex.OP-1.2/18, copy of information letter dated 2.4.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/19, copy of letter dated 28.7.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/20, copy of letter dated 13.8.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/21, copy of letter dated 8.9.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/22, reply of legal notice Ex.OP-1.2/23, copy of postal receipt Ex.OP-1.2/24, copy of envelope Ex.OP-1.2/25, copy of information to police Ex.OP-1.2/26, copy of e-mail dated 22.7.2015 and 14.7.2015 Ex.OP-1.2/27 and Ex.OP-1.2/28, copy of difference of rate sheet Ex.OP-1.2/29, copy of invoice Ex.OP-1.2/30 and Ex.OP-1.2/31, copy of difference of loss sheet Ex.OP-1.2/32, copy of estimate Ex.OP-1.2/33, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-1.2/34, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-1.2/35 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vipan Singla Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
9. At the outset the learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that this Forum at Barnala has no territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that the insurance policy of the vehicle in question was issued from Mansa and the accident is occurred in the jurisdiction of police station, Ramdevra District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan). Moreover, no cause of action has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Barnala.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has been tendered that the policy was got issued through the agent namely Vipan Singla opposite party No. 3 and the said agent is having its office and residence at Barnala and moreover payment was also made at Barnala and the opposite party had also made correspondence with the complainant at Barnala. Therefore, part of cause of action has arisen at Barnala and this Forum at Barnala has requisite territorial jurisdiction.
11. Firstly, it is also relevant to refer Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as under.-
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-
(1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs)
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
12. Perusal of the provisions of ibid section clearly shows that it is not the resident or the office of the complainant which is to be considered for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.
13. Firstly it is relevant to scrutinize the documents placed by the complainant on the record. The material document is the insurance policy Ex.C-2. Perusal of the same shows that the branch office is shown at Mansa which has issued the policy in question in favour of the complainant. The registered office has shown at Mumbai opposite party No. 1. Ex.C-6 is letter written by the complainant to the branch Manager of the insurance company at Mansa for settlement of the claim. There is no dispute that no accident took place in the jurisdiction of Barnala. The complainant is also failed to place on record any payment receipt indicating that the insurance premium was paid at Barnala. The entire emphasis of the complainant is that the policy was got issued by the agent Vipan Singla who is authorized agent of the insurance company. However, no document is placed on record that the said Vipan Singla has been authorized by the insurance company to collect the insurance premium and there is no mention that the branch office for collecting the premium is at Barnala.
14. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) CLT 252 that:
“ when the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala and since no cause of action arose at Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction and State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that Expression 'branch office' is amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.”
15. In case titled “M/s Sethi Agriculture Store Versus Gurdev Singh, First Appeal No. 1114 of 2011 decided on 20.3.2013, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab while dealing with a case where the seed was purchased from Sirsa and sown in Village Sanga in District Mansa was pleased to observe that.-
“in the present case only the District Forum at Sirsa had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the District Forum Mansa had no such territorial jurisdiction.”
16. As a result of above discussion and in view of above mentioned citations we are of the opinion that complainant has miserably failed to prove the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant against proper receipt with liberty to present the same in the appropriate Forum, if he desires so. No order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
12th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
