DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.247 of 02-06-2011 Decided on 31-10-2011
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala, through its Managing Director Sh. Monvesh Singh. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager Sh. Ravinder Singh Aulakh, Bathinda Depot. .......Complainants
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its MD, Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Sector-17 D, Chandigarh. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Senior Division Officer, Division Office, 4501, Bank Bazar, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Gulab Singh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. M.L.Bansal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Bus bearing registration No.PB-03-0214, Engine No.YXH592958, Chassis No.JC79GWA0506, Ashok Leyland Model 2010 and Regional Transport Authority Ferozepur issued permit for route/area No.83/Reg. The said Bus was got comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide Certificate-cum-Policy No.121100/31/2010/2302 w.e.f. 23.02.2010 to 22.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.27,30,000/- with other benefits and the complainant paid a total premium of Rs.53,987/-. On 03.07.2010, the aforesaid Bus of the complainant met with an accident and the loss suffered to the tune of Rs.42,380/- and intimation in this regard, was given to the opposite parties and lodged the claim of Rs.42,380/- with the opposite parties. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the documents to the opposite parties. Since, the date of lodging the claim, the complainant has been repeatedly approaching the opposite parties to settle his claim but a period of about six months has been elapsed but the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant. On 14.01.2011, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The Insurance Policy in question had been taken from Mumbai office of the opposite parties, the place of accident in question has not been disclosed. The opposite parties have taken the support of law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the branch office means that any part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that very branch but in the case in hand, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Bathinda District. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that he himself has not completed the requisite formalities despite repeated requests made by the opposite parties. On the receipt of information about the accident, the concerned office has deputed their surveyor to assess the loss but the complainant has not co-operated with the concerned office and thereafter, the concerned office repeatedly requested the complainant to complete the formalities for settlement of the claim and to produce the relevant papers but the complainant has failed to submit the requisite documents due to which, the claim of the complainant could not be settled so far due to negligence on the part of the complainant itself. The concerned office of the opposite parties sought the original documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Driving License of the concerned driver, bills of parts repaired, Fitness, Route Permit etc from the complainant but he has failed to produce the same. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant is owner of Bus bearing registration No.PB-03-0214 and it was got insured with the opposite parties vide Certificate-cum-Policy No.121100/31/2010/2302 w.e.f. 23.02.2010 to 22.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.27,30,000/- and he paid a premium of Rs.53,987/-. On 03.07.2010, the aforesaid Bus of the complainant met with an accident and the loss suffered of Rs.42,380/- and intimation in this regard, was given to the opposite parties and lodged the claim of Rs.42,380/- and fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the documents with the opposite parties. Since, the date of lodging the claim, the complainant has been repeatedly approaching the opposite parties to settle his claim but a period of about six months has been elapsed but the opposite parties did not settle their claim. 6. The opposite parties have taken legal objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the policy in question has been issued from Mumbai office and no part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda Branch office. The policy in question had been taken from Mumbai office of the opposite parties, the place of accident in question has not been disclosed. The opposite parties have further submitted that the complainant has himself not completed the requisite formalities despite repeated requests made by the opposite parties. On the receipt of information about the accident, the opposite parties have deputed their surveyor to assess the loss but the complainant has not co-operated with them and the complainant has failed to submit the requisite documents due to which, the claim of the complainant could not be settled. The claim, if any, was payable according to the terms and conditions and on completion of all the requisite formalities by the complainant. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant No.1 had purchased the policy from Mumbai Ex.C-1 and the estimate has been issued by Amba Traders, Abohar. 8. A perusal of letter Ex.C-5 written by Mr. Arun Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, to the complainant shows:- “The said Bus was inspected by the undersigned on 03.03.2011 at M/s Srhi Krishna Body Works, Abohar. Still said Bus is not repaired completely. However, said bus under repair was physically checked on 05.03.2011. Estimate loss was Rs.90,000/- and assessed loss will be about Rs.54,000/-. Exact figure of assessed loss will be given after complete repair.” 9. A perusal of Claim Intimation Ex.C-9 shows that the place of accident is Goniana, Distt. Bathinda. The claim intimation received from the Insured from Bathinda Branch office. Hence, a part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda District. As per section 11(2)(c) of the 'Act':- “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” In the case in hand, the policy has been taken by the complainant from Mumbai but the accident took place in Bathinda District and the claim intimation has been sent from Bathinda Branch office. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case cited at 2010(1) CLT 252 titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited wherein, it has been held that:- “(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17(2)(b) (as amended in the year 2003) – Territorial jurisdiction – Expression 'branch office' Held that the expression 'branch office' in amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.” Therefore, the objection taken by the opposite parties that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, is not tenable as the part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. No surveyor report has been placed on file either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. Mr. Arunt Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the bus bearing No. PB-03-0214, has given the following report vide Ex.C-5:- “The said Bus was inspected by the undersigned on 03.03.2011 at M/s Srhi Krishna Body Works, Abohar. Still said Bus is not repaired completely. However, said bus under repair was physically checked on 05.03.2011. Estimate loss was Rs.90,000/- and assessed loss will be about Rs.54,000/-. Exact figure of assessed loss will be given after complete repair.” In this report, he has specifically mentioned that the exact figure of loss assessed will be given after completion of repair but after completion of repair, no final survey report has been placed on file by the opposite parties. The estimate was given to the tune of Rs.53,420/- whereas the Performa Invoice Ex.C-10 shows the amount of Rs.42,380.25 and in Retail Invoice cum Challan Ex.C-11, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.8,824/- and Rs.33,556/-, the total amount is Rs.42,380/- (8824+33556) which has been paid by the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled to reimburse the amount of Rs.42,380/- from the opposite parties. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.42,380/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the amount of Rs.42,380/- till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 31-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
