Delhi

East Delhi

CC/339/2018

HIRA LAL RATTAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS. - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 339/18

 

Hira Lal Rattan Lal

4004, Naya Bazar

Delhi                                                                                             ….Complainant

                                                                Vs.         

 

1. Shri Vikas Singhal

C-73, Ganesh Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Scope Minar Complex

Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 26.10.2018

Date of Order: 14.05.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Hira Lal Rattan Lal against         Shri Vikas Singhal (OP-1) and United India Insurance Company Limited (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

            The facts in brief that complainant Hira Lal Rattan Lal, a proprietorship concern, engaged as General Merchant & order suppliers in the business of supplying/dealing in general merchandise goods/food grains used to have insurance policies through Shri Vikas Singhal (OP-1) who used to visit their Naya Bazar office, Delhi, being an agent of insurance companies.  The complainant desired to obtain one Marine Cargo Open Policy for their goods and transit and Shri Vikas Singhal promised to get the same and advised the complainant to transfer an amount of Rs. 37,214/- in the bank account of insurance company.

            As advised, the complainant requested their Corporation Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi to transfer an amount of Rs. 37,214/- in the account no. 020500201002577 as given by OP-1 in lieu of advance premium for the same. 

            It has been stated that due to utter surprise of complainant, they noticed that policy of insurance was issued by the insurance company from their Vaishali office which falls under Ghaziabad instead of Delhi Office.  When Shri Vikas Singhal was confronted on this, he accepted his mistake and assured the complainant that all required services will be done in Delhi. 

            It has been stated that OP’s Vaishali office was under direct control of OPs Delhi office at Laxmi Nagar, issued policy                                      no. 2220042115P116495459 insuring all material under transit for a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- which was increased from time to time and last increase was by Rs. 2,00,00,000/- on 17.02.2017 covering all risks including SRCC against road transit from anywhere in India with 10% as CIF.  The policy was for a period of one year w.e.f. 31.03.2016 to 30.03.2017 and a sum of Rs. 14,950/- charged as advanced premium by OPs.  They only issued a two page document which was not containing any terms and conditions. 

            The complainant sold material amounting to Rs. 18,31,222/- vide invoice no. 127 dated 21.09.2017 to M/s. Ajay Trading Company, Alipurduar, West Bangal  which was to be transported to Alipurduar.   The complainant declared this material to OP vide declaration for the month of September and the monthly declaration for a total sum of Rs. 20,14,344/-                 (Rs. 18,31,222/- + 10%).  This material was transported by M/s. GTC Freight Carrier from Naya Bazar office to Alipurduar for delivery to consignee through their vehicle bearing no. NL OIK 5679 vide GR No. 3776 dated 21.09.2016. 

            It has been stated that the material was badly damaged due to heavy rains in transit.  This was informed by the carrier company which in turn was informed to the local office of OP at Alipurduar on 30.09.2016.  They deputed a surveyor for assessment of loss.  The intimation of loss was also given to the local office by mail on 14.10.2016.  The surveyor assessed the loss of material at Rs. 18,31,222/-, but refused to add 10% over and above as per policy as both the surveyor and OP were in collusion with each other.  A survey fee of Rs. 6,850/- was charged by the surveyor, but no copy of the survey report was given to the complainant.  Though, OP got a copy of the survey report on 21.11.2016 as informed by them, but the complainant did not get the copy which was in violation of IRDA rules. 

The complainant submitted all the documents alongwith the claim form with OP, but the claim has not been settled.  The complainant was informed on 10.01.2017 by mail that they have to submit documents as well as letter of subrogation, though, all the documents were in their possession.  The complainant submitted all the documents.  They transferred a sum of Rs. 4,51,449/- on 31.03.2017 without any detail against a total claim of     Rs. 20,00,000/-. 

When the complainant enquired from OP with regard to the details of payment, they were informed on 12.04.2017 that the claim has been settled on sub-standard basis due to non-submission of certain documents.  The complainant immediately lodged this protest to the concerned offices/officer of OP through mail which were also replied by them.  The complainant was informed that the settlement of the claim has been done on nonstandard basis for the reasons of non submission of documents. 

It has been stated that the delay in settlement of balance payment of claim amounting to Rs. 15,62,895/- was totally motivated, malafide, illegal and inspired by ulterior motives.  It has been stated that the cause of action  arose on 21.09.2016 when the vehicle carrying the insured goods of the complainant, when the damaged goods were surveyed by the surveyor on 30.09.2016, when blank letter of subrogation and letter of authority was obtained on 10.01.2017 and on 31.03.2017 when part money was transferred in their account.  The pecuniary jurisdiction as well as territorial jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by the complainant since the respondent was residing and doing business which was within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  Thus, the complainant have prayed for directions to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 15,62,895/- being the amount of loss suffered plus survey fee paid to the surveyor; interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim; Rs. 1,00,000/- being the cost of suit and Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation towards harassment, inconvenience and business loss suffered by the complainant.   

 

 

Heard on admission.

            We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the point of jurisdiction.  It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the jurisdiction of this Forum was invoked on the basis of agent Shri Vikas Singhal, having visited their residence and taken the documents.  He has further argued that United India Insurance Company (UIIC) was having their office at Laxmi Nagar District Centre. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, it has to be seen as to whether the visit of Shri Vikas Singhal, agent of UIIC will give rise to the cause of action or UIIC having its office at Laxmi Nagar will confer the jurisdiction on the basis of having their office at Laxmi Nagar.  For this, the complaint coupled with the documents have to be looked into.  From the memo of parties, it is noticed that Shri Vikas Singhal, who is alleged to be agent of OP at whose instance the complainant have got the Marine Insurance Policy issued have been arrayed as one of the party.  When the claim of the complainant has been against UIIC, agent             Shri Vikas Singhal is not a necessary party.  That being so, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant that the visit of      Shri Vikas Singhal at their residence have conferred jurisdiction on this Forum.  Even otherwise also, the complaint does not say that                  Shri Vikas Singhal used to visit at his residence.  On the contrary, in para 3 of the complaint, it has been stated that Shri Vikas Singhal used to visit their Naya Bazar office.  Even the documents which have been placed on record show that he received the premium cheque from their Naya Bazar office.

            Coming to the second argument that UIIC was having their office at Laxmi Nagar District Centre.  If the insurance policy placed on record is perused, it is noticed that UIIC was having their office at Vaishali, Ghaziabad with their registered head office at Chennai.  This document does not show that they are having their office at Laxmi Nagar District Centre.  Even if they are having their office at Laxmi Nagar, nothing has happened at Laxmi Nagar office as the policy has been issued from their Vaishali office as is the case of the complainant himself.

            Not only that, all correspondent have been made at their Vaishali office.  Even the claim has been filed and the payment have been received from their Vaishali Office.  That being so, no cause of action have arisen with the jurisdiction of this Forum.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted and it stands rejected.  There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President