Delhi

East Delhi

CC/243/2022

RAJ KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/243/2022
( Date of Filing : 18 May 2022 )
 
1. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA
H. NO. L-106/1, GALI NO-6, KARTAR NAGAR, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, GARHI MENDU, DELHI-53
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO.
165/166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, H.T. PAREKH MARG, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA PRESIDENT
  RAVI KUMAR MEMBER
  MS. RASHMI BANSAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 03 Feb 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Present:        None

Matter today is fixed for consideration on the jurisdiction aspect.  Apart from jurisdiction, it was also observed on the very first date of hearing that neither any claim form has been filed by the complainant before the Insurance Company, nor any letter, by which, OP has repudiated the claim has been filed by the complainant and even no document with respect to the fact as to whether the vehicle was actually got repaired or not has been filed.  Arguments on jurisdiction aspect were also heard. 

The Complainant resides at North East as per Memo of Parties and the policy of the Insurance was issued from Gautam Budh Nagar.  The registered office of the OP is at Mumbai and present complaint case has been filed within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission by stating that one of the Delhi regional office of OP is situated in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.  However, no cause of action has been attributed as to what cause of action has taken palce at Laxmi Nagar District.  Law is well settled and the issue w.r.t. branch office is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1560/2004 in a case titled Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company has inter- alia held that: 

 “In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh”.

 

And it was inter-alia held that having a mere branch office, by itself would not confer jurisdiction of a particular Forum.   

Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that no case is made with respect to jurisdiction of this Commission in absence of any explanations as to what cause of action has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Accordingly, the complaint case is ordered to be returned to the complainant by retaining the photocopy. 

Copy of this Order and Photocopy of file be consigned to Record Room.    

 
 
[ SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ RAVI KUMAR]
MEMBER
 
 
[ MS. RASHMI BANSAL]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.