Delhi

East Delhi

CC/167/2014

INDOGULF CROPSCIENCES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 167/2014 

 

	INDOGULF CROPSCIENCES LIMITED THROUGH SH. SANJEEV KUMAR BAKSHI 501, GOPAL HEIGHTS, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI-110034	….Complainant
Versus
	M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-I CLAIM HUB, JEEVAN BHARTI, LEVEL-V, TOWER-II, 124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 10.02.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 23.12.2022

Judgment Passed on: 11.01.2023

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in repudiating the claim of the Complainant which have arisen on account of fire in the premises of the Complainant situated in Jammu.  However, after going through the record the issue w.r.t. jurisdiction of this commission is also in dispute and therefore has to be adverted to.  Therefore, the issue w.r.t. jurisdiction would be discussed and decided first. 
2. Brief facts stated by the Complainant in the complaint, whose registered office is at Netaji Subhash Palace Delhi, are stated that the Complainant is engaged in the manufacturing/processing and packaging of agriculture/horticulture/agro chemicals, through its various units and one unit of the Complainant which was being used as processing unit was duly insured with the OP company having office of the OP at Connaught Circus, New Delhi for the period 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2021 for the standard fire and special perils policy.  This insured premises of the complainant was situated at Industrial Growth Centre, Phase-I, Samba, Jammu and the insured amount was Rs.5,05,00,000/- where a fire broke out.  The matter was reported to the police station as well as the fire station and also the information w.r.t. losses were given to OP vide letter reference No. JSRUL/S/118 dated 17.07.2011 and it also  lodged a claim to the extent of Rs.36,60,354/- whereafter OP appointed one M/s Sharma Surveyors, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,62,815/- only, in order to give benefit to its appointing authority, but without consideration of various conversation and communication.  The Complainant raised the objection before the higher authority of the OP Company.  The OP1 then appointed an Investigator namely Mr. K N S Sodhi who also failed to consider the claim and therefore the Complainant lodged a formal claim with the OP but the OP proceeded the matter with ‘no claim’ and as such repudiated the claim which necessitated the Complainant to file the present claim with the prayer that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1990000/- towards the loss of stock of finished/unfinished goods and other materials, Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses along with rate of 24%.
3. The OP was served and has filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable as this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the loss occurred in Jammu, the policy was issued from a branch situated at Panipat and therefore District Forum at Delhi does not have any jurisdiction.  The OP have given offer letter for a sum of Rs.562815/- on the basis of report submitted by M/s Sharma Surveyors which was not accepted by the Complainant, which was even confirmed by K N S Sodhi, and the complaint is false and frivolous.  It is further stated that the Complainant has concealed the material facts from the court and the complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of CP Act. 
4. On merits the contents with respect to the policy are not disputed and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and it is specifically reiterated that OP had clarified all the problems to the Complainant and on account of no positive response from the Complainant it has closed the file as ‘no claim’.  The fact w.r.t. no jurisdiction of this commission is reiterated and it is prayed that present complaint be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
5. Rejoinder was filed by the Complainant and both the parties have filed their respective evidence.     
6. On the jurisdiction aspect it is reiterated that since the regional/ operating office of OP is situated in Delhi, this creates territorial jurisdiction in this commission.       
7. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.  The law is well settled as the commission first of all has to decide the fact whether it has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim as filed in Delhi. 
8. The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court the authority to deal with a particular case.  If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of that case.  Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.  This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case.  Admittedly, neither any policy has been issued from East Delhi, nor any of the office any cause of action of the OP is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission nor any cause of action has been attributed to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Further, Complainant also does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 
10. Further 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 Ltd. Wherein it has been held as-

 

“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”.

 

11. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that mere having administrative office in Delhi would not create any jurisdiction in this commission.  Above all, apart from writing one sentence in the Rejoinder that the administrative office of OP is in Delhi it has even not been clarified as to where and whether that administrative office is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. 

 

Accordingly, it is ordered this Commission does not have Territorial Jurisdiction.  The Photocopy of the file be retained, original documents/proceedings be returned to the complainant and photocopy of file be consigned to Record Room.