Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/298

M/s Des Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sampo Gen.Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Asheesh Kumar Adv.

29 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                      C.C. No:298 of 05.05.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:29.05.2015

M/s Des Raj Ashok Kumar, Shop No.29, New Grain Market, Faridkot through its Proprietor Sh.Sukhwinder Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar.

Complainant

Versus 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited,SCO No.10-11, Near DCB Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

                   Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Ms.Babita, Member.                        

         

Present:      Sh.Asheesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that M/s Des Raj Ashok Kumar, Shop No.29, New Grain Market, Faridkot through its Proprietor Sh.Sukhwinder Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited,SCO No.10-11, Near DCB Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’) with the brief averments that the complainant purchased Volks Wagon Polo car bearing registration No.PB-04-N-8129 and thereafter, the complainant got the aforesaid vehicle insured for Rs.4,20,000/- from OP vide cover note No.0001274757 which was valid from 12.12.2012 to 11.12.2013. However, the OP has not supplied the policy of such insurance to the complainant and the insurance covered down damage and third party risk also. On 16.4.2013, in the area of Faridkot, the aforesaid car met with an accident, in which, the vehicle was totally damaged and DDR No.59 dated 16.4.2013 had been lodged at P.S.City, Faridkot. The complainant immediately intimated the accident to the OP and spot survey was got conducted by the OP. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP for total damage/loss of the said vehicle which was registered by the OP and the complainant supplied all the requisite documents and information sought by the OP. On 23.7.2013, the official of OP offered to pay Rs.3,50,000/- in lump sum to the complainant and a written application was also received by the OP from the proprietor of the complainant on 23.7.2013 by one Ankush Kumar, official of OP. The officials of OP have obtained the signature of the complainant on various blank proformas and papers under the excuse of lodging of claim. Despite of elapsing of long time, the OP failed to pay the claim of car, despite repeated visits to the OP, whereas the OP is under legal obligation to settle the claim as per offer made by the officials of the OP to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Perusal of the contents of the complaint reveals that there are specific allegations of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Volks Wagon Polo Car bearing registration No.PB-04-N-8129 which he had got insured for Rs.4,20,000/- from the OP vide cover note No.0001274757 valid w.e.f.12.12.2012 to 11.12.2013. The copy of the cover not which has been placed on record by the complainant reveals that the same was issued by the Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd, Jalandhar on 11.12.2012 against payment of premium of Rs.11,917/-. So, it appears that the insurance contract took place between the parties at Jalandhar and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar has got the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the matter in dispute. Further, as per the contents of the complaint that that the accident of the vehicle took place in the area of Faridkot and DDR No.59 dated 16.4.2013 qua the alleged accident was lodged at P.S.City, Faridkot.

3.                So, it appears from the averments of the complaint that no cause of action or any part of cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Ludhiana. So, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

4.                Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pertains to jurisdiction of the District Forum to try and entertain the complaint, which provides as under:-

i)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

ii)A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

a)the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

b)any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c)the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 

5.                From the above provisions, we are of the opinion that no cause of action accrued wholly or in part to the complainant at Ludhiana and it appears that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

6.                So, in view of the above discussion, we do not admit the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable as the same is barred by jurisdiction. The copy of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

(Babita)                              (R.L.Ahuja)

          Member                                  President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:29.05.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)