Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/327/2020

H.M.S. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Bansal

15 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	327 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	30.07.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	15.05.2024

 

 

 

 

 

H.M.S.Buildcon Private Limited, SCO 85, P.L.A. Shaping Complex, Near Town Park, Hisar, District Hisar, through its Director and Authorized Person Sh.Pradeep Saraogi

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, having its regional office at SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

2]  United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director/Company Head, Branch Office Registered & Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Ms.,Nidhi Ayer, Counsel for the complainant     (Through V.C.)

Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OPs (Throguh V.C.)

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant company has filed the present complaint pleading that it purchased one ford Endeavour Trend 2.2. MT Car on 21.11.2019 bearing Regd. No.HR-20AH-2694 for the personal use of the Director/Owners and employees of the company and the said car was duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide insurance policy Ann.C-6 valid from 16.10.2017 to 15.10.2018.  Unfortunately on 22.8.2018, the said vehicle while it was being driven by Satish Kumar, Diver of the complainant company, holding a valid driving license, met with an accident in the area of village Mundhal as the vehicle went off the road and went into ditches, resultantly, the vehicle was badly damaged. Thereafter, the car was taken to authorized dealer of ford i.e. Sidhanth Motors Private Limited, Hissar. On intimation to OPs, they appointed Surveyor who was supplied with all requisite document.  It is submitted that since the cost of the repair of the vehicle was exceeding to its insured value, so the vehicle was declared as total loss (Ann.C-8) and the net loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.25,73,000/-.  It is also submitted that all necessary documents, as  demanded by the OP Company were supplied to them for settling the claim but despite of all that as well as several visited to the OPs, they intentionally & illegally close the file as “No Claim” vide letter dated 05.01.2020 (Ann.C-24). Therefore, the present complaint has been preferred by the complainant alleging the above said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,73,000/- being cost of vehicle along with interest as well as compensation and litigation cost. 

 

2]       After the service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission through their counsel and filed their written version to the complaint taking preliminary objection that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as no cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of this Commission since the policy of insurance was issued from Siwani, Haryana; accident took place at Mundal near Hissar and the address of the complainant is also of District Hissar. On merits, the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case about the insurance of the vehicle, damaged to the vehicle during policy, loss assessed by the surveyor, submitted that as the complainant failed to comply with the claim formalities despite reminders, so the claim was treated as No Claim on 05.01.2020 (Ann.R1-2/B Colly.).   It is stated that the complainant at the time of purchasing the current insurance policy has taken a benefit of 20% amounting to Rs.94344.44/- under the head of No Claim Bonus whereas the complainant has taken a claim in the earlier policy, so the claim will be settled on non-standard basis by reducing 20% of the amount as assessed by the surveyor, subject to completion of formalities by the complainant.  It is pleaded that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the present complaint needs to be allowed, in that case, the maximum liability of the answering OPs comes to Rs.14,78,250/- only after deducing 20% of the claim amount as assessed by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.19,71,000/- (Ann.R1-2/D). Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written arguments. 

5]       The first question to be decided is as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not ?

 

6]       It is observed that the complainant is resident of Hisar (Haryana) and falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar, Haryana. The Insurance Policy in respect of the vehicle in question has been issued at Siwani, Haryana, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Mundhal, Haryana, the claim in respect of the insured vehicle was lodged and closed as No Claim by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at Siwani, Haryana.  Hence, neither the complainant is residing at Chandigarh nor any cause of action has accrued to the complainant in respect of the insured vehicle at Chandigarh. There is no document to show that the cause of action accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh and it appears the OP No.1 i.e. Chandigarh Office of United India Insurance Company has been made party only to institute the complaint at Chandigarh.

 

7]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company, 2010(I) CLT 2521  held that there should be nexus between the cause of action and the District Commission having territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.  “It is held that fire admittedly broken in the godown at Ambala, the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Commission at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction.”

 

8]       In the present case, this Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate upon this complaint as neither the complainant is residing within its jurisdiction nor any cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.  Therefore, taking into account the above stated facts & circumstances, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable and it is ordered to be returned to the complainant with permission to file before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) or any other competent Court of Law/Tribunal/ Authority and the time spent herein may stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.

9]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

10]      Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant against proper receipt and after retaining its copy.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.05.2024                                                                   

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER