BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

Data Ram, Age 58 years, son Late Shri Jeeta Ram, # A-401, GH-1, Sector-23, Panchkula, Haryana, Parmalat Address 336, Gali No.14, Village Samalkha, South-West, Delhi-110037

                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1.     The Manager, ZUNO General Insurance Limited, Flat No.1111,   Ashoka Estate, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001.

2.     The Chief Executive Officers(CEO), Zuno General Insurance       Limited, Registered Office: 2^nd Floor Tower 3, Wing B, Kohinoor     City Mall, Kirol Road, Kurla(West), Mumbai-400070

3.     Mr. Naveen Kumar, CEO, Dhingra Motors, 1 Plot No.69, Mehrauli        Road, Industrial Area, IDC, Gurugrum

4.     The Manager, Girnsoft Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. E-3, Rani Jhansi Road,    Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi-110055

5.     Smt. Sagina Dhingra and Shri Giriraj Dhingra, Address: Dhingra Motors, 1 Plot No.69, Mehrauli Road IDC, Gurugrum, Haryana.

                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Sh. S.P.Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint, are, that the complainant is owner of the car bearing registration no.DL-8CBG-7889, which met an unfortunate accident on 29.04.2024 near turning Dwarka Express Way Gurugram, Haryana. It is averred that the car in question was driven by Sh. Hanuman son of Late Shri Jeet Ram resident of H.No.550, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, permanent resident of village Bhedanti, Tehsil Nangal Choudhary, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, who was having a valid driving license. An FIR no.168 dated 30.04.2024 was registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram, under Section 279, 304-A and 337 IPC qua the said accident and the said car was seized/taken in possession by the police on 29.04.2024, which was released on superdari on 31.05.2024 on the basis of order of the learned Court. It is stated that the complainant has taken the damaged car in question from the Police on 01.06.2024 and the same was handed over to the authorized KIA bodyshop, Plot No.55, Sector-16, Industrial Area, Gurugrum, for denting-painting and that the complainant also informed the ZUNO General Insurance Company(OPs No.1 to 3) qua  the  said car, who has registered the insurance claim bearing no.600000000156815 qua the damaged car bearing registration no.DL-8CBG-7889. It is averred that a letter dated 25.06.2024 containing some irrelevant objections was sent by the OP’s surveyor to the complainant qua the said insurance claim, which was received by the complainant on 29.06.2024. It is averred that the complainant has sent his reply vide email on 29.06.2024 itself but to no avail. It is alleged that the complainant has visited the OPs about 15 times from 02.06.2024 to 01.07.2024 but the claim has not been settled by the OPs so far and thus, the complainant was compelled to send the legal notice dated 01.07.2024 qua the accidental claim in question. It is averred that the complainant visited the bodywork shop of Kia, Gurugrum on 02.06.2024 and that the surveyor had surveyed the accidental car in question but he wanted some monetary favour as kick back for giving his favorable recommendations. It is stated that the insurance policy of the car in question was valid at the time of accident; thus, the ZUNO General Insurance Company cannot run away from their liability.  It is stated that the illegal action of Ops have caused undue harassment and mental agony to the complainant, for which, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and he is also entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation charges.

2.             During arguments, the learned counsel reiterated the averments as made in the complaint and contended that the insurance claim no.600000000156815 was lodged by the complainant with the OPs No.1 to 3 to seek the indemnification of the losses as suffered in the accident of the insured car bearing registration no.DL-8CBG-7889 but the OP’s surveyor has raised irrelevant objections and sought irrelevant information/documents from him(the complainant)vide letter dated 25.06.2024. It was argued that the said letter, as received by the complainant on 29.06.2024, was replied by him(the complainant) by his email on the same day.  It was argued that the said insured car had met with an accident during the validity period of insurance policy and thus, it is binding upon the OPs to indemnify the losses as sustained in the accident of the said car in question. It was further argued that  OPs have been deficient while not settling the accident in question as per the provisions  contained  in Section 15 of the  Insurance Regulatory  and Development Authority of India(Protection of Policyholders’ interests) Regulations, 2017.

                Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for issuance of the directions as prayed for in the complaint by admitting the complaint.

3.             After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record available on file, minutely and carefully, it is found that the insurance policy bearing no.900614174 was issued by the ZUNO General Insurance Limited i.e. OPs No.1 & 2 covering the risk w.e.f.  24.01.2024 to 23.01.2015 qua the vehicle bearing engine no. D4FAPM850566 and Chassis no. MZBGC813MPN098204. The said insurance policy was sent by the said insurance company at the following address of the complainant:-

        H.No.336, Gali No.14, Telephone Exchange Road, Samalkha      Village, Delhi-110037.

                As per policy schedule of the insurance policy, the car in question was registered at the registering authority in Delhi. As per FIR No.0168 registered in Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram, Haryana on 30.04.2024 under Section 279, 337 and 304A  IPC, the insured car had made with an accident near Dwarka Express Road, Gurugram, Haryana; as such, the cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of District Gurugram Haryana. Further as per Superdginama and surety bonds of the wife of the complainant, appended with the complaint, the complainant has been stated to be the resident of above mention address at Delhi. Further, on the backside of the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Sh. Arun Dabla, Ld. JMIC, Gurugram, the complainant himself alongwith his mobile number, has given the aforesaid address of Delhi, Further, the OP No.4, after lodging of the insurance claim no.600000000156815 by the complainant has asked him vide letter dated 25.06.2024 to provide certain clarifications/documents by sending the said letter on the aforesaid address of the complainant at Delhi. Even it is the case of the complainant that he is a permanent resident of aforesaid address at Delhi and the insurance policy  in question was issued to him at the said address at Delhi. Further, it is the case of the complainant that cause of action has arisen at Gurugram as the accident has occurred in the area of Gurugram. As such, the complainant is neither the resident of Panchkula nor the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of District Panchkula.

4.             As per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint can be filed in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the Op resides or carries of business or has a branch office or cause of action has arisen or the complainant resides or personally works for gain. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the relevant para of Section 34(2) is reproduced as under:-

(2)     A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission 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, ordinarily 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 the permission of the District Commission is     given; or

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

(d)     the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

5.             Now, coming to the facts of the present case neither the OPs reside or has a branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Panchkula nor cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant, in para no.11 of the complaint as well as corresponding para of his affidavit has simply stated that the complainant is the resident of Panchkula and in this regard, has relied upon the rent agreement dated 05.07.2024, which was executed between the complainant one hand and the wife of Sh. S.P.Yadav, who is complainant’s counsel.   

6.             From the perusal of the said rent agreement, it is evident that the said rent agreement was executed on 05.07.2024 i.e. after the accident in question on 29.04.2024. Further, from the perusal of said rent agreement deed dated 05.07.2024, the purpose, for which, the complainant has hired one room in the alleged unit is not revealed. However, in para no.3 of the rent agreement, it is mentioned that the premises shall be used only for the residential purpose but in the entire complaint as well as the rent deed, it has not been disclosed as to why the complainant has taken one room on rent in the alleged unit. It is not the case of the complainant that he is employed in District Panchkula or in Chandigarh or in nearby area in some office or in any industrial units. Further, it is also not the case of the complainant that he has taken the said room on rent vide said rent agreement so as to carry out his business or trade activities.

7.             However, we have found the reply as sent by the complainant on 29.06.2024 to OP no.4 as well as legal notice dated 01.07.2014, wherein the complainant has given the address of Panchkula. In our considered opinion, the reply sent by the complainant on 29.06.2014 to OP No.2 as well as the legal notice sent to Ops on 01.07.2024 by mentioning the address of Panchkula on the same, does not confer the territorial jurisdiction upon this Commission at Panchkula. In our considered opinion, the complainant has attempted to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Panchkula by sending the said reply and legal notice and execution of the said rent agreement/ deed. As per the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act as reproduced above, the word “resides” is not qualified by any such word like temporary etc.

8.             From the perusal of Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act as reproduced above, it is crystal clear that a complaint can be filed by a person at such place, where he ordinarily resides or personally works for gain. As per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019, the legislature has allowed a person to file the consumer complaint in the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission, wherein he generally or ordinarily resides. In the present case, the complainant is the permanent resident of Delhi and the cause of action has arisen in the area of Gurugram and thus, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.

9.             In addition to above, it is pertinent to mention here that the claim has not been repudiated or denied or closed by the OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company so far.

10.            A dispute under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable only when there arises consumer dispute between the consumer on one hand and the service provider on the other hand. The “consumer dispute” has been defined in Section 2(8) of the Consumer Protection as under:-

(8) “consumer disputes” means a dispute  where the person against whom  a complaint has been made,  denies  or disputes  the allegations  contained in the complaint.

11.            Since, the OPs i.e. insurance company, admittedly, have not rejected or repudiated the claim no. 600000000156815, which has been lodged by the complainant qua the accidental car in question, no consumer dispute has arisen, at this stage, and thus, the complaint is not maintainable, being pre-mature, and thus, the present complaint is disposed of, accordingly with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Authority/Commission/Court having jurisdiction, if he is so advised. The Assistant of this Commission is directed to return the original annexures along with member sets to the complainant after retaining photocopy of the original annexures on the case file. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant, free of cost, and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 17.07.2024

        Dr.Suman Singh                 Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

              Member                           Member                 President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                        (Satpal)

                                            President