DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.99/21.07.2008 Decided on : 27.02.2009 M/s Sarna Mal Mukand Lal, Rampura, through Sh.Om Parkash S/o Sh. Mukand Lal S/o Sh. Sarna Mal, Near Arya High School, Rampura, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Rampura, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, counsel for the opposite party. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President This complaint has been filed by M/s Sarna Mal Mukand Lal, resident of Rampura, against Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Rampura, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for payment of Rs. 3 lacs against insurance claim and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Utility vehicle bearing Registration No. PB31B7788 for which he has secured comprehensive insurance policy vide cover note No. 621090 from the Contd........2 : 2 : opposite party and make payment of premium in the sum of Rs.5087/-, as such, he is consumer under the opposite party concerning the said insurance policy secured by him for his vehicle which met with an accident on 10.3.2007 i.e. during the period of its validity. On account of the said accident, F.I.R. No.33 dated 13.3.2007 was registered and intimation about the accident was conveyed to the opposite party. The complainant also supplied copies of all the requisite documents vide letter dated 26.2.2008, but his claim has been repudiated by the opposite party, in illegal and arbitrary manner on the ground that vehicle does not possess any fitness certificate on the date of accident, as such, they are not liable to pay any amount on account of insurance policy. Since the action of the opposite party is arbitrary and unsustainable, therefore, there is deficiency in service on his part and complainant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.3 lacs under the policy issued against his vehicle. 3. On being put to notice, the Opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, because no cause of action has accrued to the complainant within its territorial jurisdiction and vehicle was insured at Rampuraphul where the complainant resides; that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint,as such, only civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy;that the complainant has been using the vehicle for commercial purposes at the time of accident; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi,to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that complaint, is not maintainable in the present form, as vehicle was plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it Contd........3 : 3 : is admitted that complainant got insured his vehicle from the opposite party vide cover note No. 621090 and paid premium in the sum of Rs. 5087/-. The factum of accident and registration of F.I.R. is denied for want of knowledge and it is submitted that from the documents furnished by the complainant it has been urged out that his vehicle did not possess any fitness certificate on the date of accident. It is also submitted that claim lodged by the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party, because he has been using his vehicle without obtaining fitness certificate before the date of accident in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-7, and copies of documents Ext.C-1 to C-6 before his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager, Ext.R-6 and copies of documents Ext.R-1 to R-5 before his counsel closed evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh. P.K.Singla,Advocate has submitted that insurance policy, has been secured by the complainant from opposite party at Bathinda and complainant is also a resident of Rampuraphul in District Bathinda. Learned counsel also argued that accident, as per the version of the complainant, has taken place at Muktsar and F.I.R. has also been registered at the same place, as such, no cause of action, has accrued to the complainant to file the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Contd........4 : 4 : 7. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that vehicle of the complainant is registered at Mansa and he is using the vehicle at the same place, as such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party. As per provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction opposite party actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or opposite party has acquiesced in such a institution or cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 9. In the head note of the complaint, the complainant has described himself to be a resident of Rampuraphul, District Bathinda. As per the insurance cover note Ext.C-4, he has secured the insurance policy for his vehicle from the office of the opposite party situated at Rampuraphul in District Bathinda. The complainant has not taken any plea that any office of the opposite party is also situated, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and opposite party carries on business also through any such branch. He has not impleaded any branch of the opposite party situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In the absence of any such proof, it cannot be concluded that opposite party carries on business also through any of its branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 10. The complainant has produced on record copy of DDR No.33 registered at P.S. Malout and also compromise deed Ext.C-2 and Ext.C-3, respectively. The perusal of these documents reveals that accident of the vehicle of the complainant took place while it was coming from Abohar via Malout to Rampuraphul on 10.3.2007 at about 11.30 P.M.. The letter dated 26.2.2008, Ext.C-5 repudiating his claim has also been addressed on the address of the complainant of Rampura Phul. As such, cause of Contd........5 : 5 : action, has also accrued to the complainant to file the complaint outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. As per copy of registration certificate Ext.C-1, complainant has given his permanent address of Rampuraphul, but his vehicle has been registered at Mansa on the address as, care of Sh.Jeewan Lal, working in the office of District Transport Officer, Mansa. The complainant has not produced on record any proof that he is actually using his vehicle, at Mansa or any other place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Forum cannot usurp the jurisdiction which does not vest in it. Since the opposite party has taken objection in the written version filed by him regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, it cannot be even said that he has acquiesced in institution of this complaint in this Forum. 11. In the light of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint and think it proper not to embark upon merits of controversy in dispute. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint, with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint, before the forum of competent jurisdiction. However, he will have the right to seek exclusion of time spent for persuing the complaint before this Forum, for the purpose of condonation of delay, as permissible, under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their costs. 13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 27.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
