Haryana

StateCommission

A/1171/2016

DHARAMBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

MANJIT SINGH

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

`STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.1171 of 2016

Date of Institution: 06.12.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 20.01.2017

 

Dharambir Singh S/o Sh.Nihal Singh, R/o village Mallar Tehsil Safidon Distt. Jind.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. B.O. II, SCO 357-358, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office IV, , Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
3.  United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Jind Branch.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Manjit Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he was having land measuring 123 kanals 2 marlas situated at Village Mallar Tehsil Safidon, District Jind (Haryana) and constructed the Net House in his agriculture land to earn more income. He obtained Standard Fire  and Special Perils Policy from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 valid from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2016. Due to storm on 23.05.2016, he suffered heavy loss and submitted claim with the O.Ps., but, no compensation was paid.  So he filed complaint.

2.      Without issuing notice, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (In short “District forum”) dismissed complaint vide impugned order dated 08.11.2016 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

3.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

4.      Arguments heard. File perused.

5.      Learned District Forum placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP), and came to conclusion that insurance company is not having office at Jind and that is why it was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint, but, this opinion cannot be upheld because as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) complaint can be filed where any party is having branch office  and cause of action has accrued. In the present case O.P.No.1 is having branch office at Jind and cause of action also accrued within district Jind. So District Forum, Jind is having jurisdiction to try this complaint.  Had branch office not been there then it could have been a different matter. These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Melanie Das Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.  12014) CPJ 302 (NC), opinion of this Commission in SBS Biotech Vs. ICICI Lomb. Gen. Ins. Company & Anr. IV (2015) CPJ 17 B (NC) (Har.), opinion of  State Commission, Shimla in Regional Centre (ECHS) Cantt. & Ors. Vs.Ram Kumar Sharma III (2013) CPJ 9B (NC) (HP) and opinion of State Commission, Punjab in Hemant Goyal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Varun Bharti 1 (2014) CPJ 210 (Punj.). In these circumstances impugned order dated 08.11.2016  is set aside.  The matter is remitted back to District Forum, Jind to decide the complaint on merits at the earliest.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Jind on 22.02.2017.

 

January 20th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.