Delhi

East Delhi

CC/7/2023

HOSHIYAR SINGH YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BADRE ALAM KHAN

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

Present:-      Sh. B.A. Khan Advocate for Complainant

Arguments were heard on the last date of hearing. However, today the complainant has filed a application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC interalia praying that he be allowed to amend the memo of parties by incorporating the other 3 addresses of OP to interalia show that one of office of OP is within the jurisdiction of this Commission and if this application is not allowed he would suffer irreparable loss. Heard on the application.

Since the OP still not been ordered to be summoned and complaint case has not yet been admitted, and also in view of legal proposition that at the time of admitting amendment application, merit of the case are not to be seen, amendment application is allowed and amended memo of parties is take on record. It is however observed that no averment is made by the complainant to amend any fact written in para 14 of the complaint w.r.t. jurisdiction & w.r.t. any other fact.

Now coming to the merit of the case w.r.t. admission on the ground of jurisdiction of this Commission. Complainant has filed the present complaint claiming himself to be resident of Pul Pahladpur, Badarpur and showing the address of OP as of Yusuf Sarai New Delhi and now he has filed an amended memo of parties showing that OP has also one of its address at Laxmi Nagar within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and has submitted that this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present claim. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that he was the policy holder of OP w.r.t. his vehicle having registration no. DL 1GC8892 was damaged due to accident in January/February 2021, (exact date not mentioned,) and OP has refused to reimburse the claim and has repudiated the claim. In para 14 of the complainant he submits that the jurisdiction of this Commission is being invoked as complainant is residence of South-East Delhi, legal notice was sent from Karkardooma Court Delhi and therefore this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Commission has enquired as to from where the policy was taken, to which it is replied that it was taken from Yusuf Sarai Delhi Branch. The legal notice was also issued to OP at Yusuf Sarai & Lawarnce Road Branch. By way of the amendment application filed today, he wants that the matter be entertained as one of the branch office of the OPs is in the Laxmi Nagar which creates jurisdiction. The Court, time and again has inquired as to whenever any documents is in possession of the complainant w.r.t. any cause of action which may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to which he submits that apart from section 19 CPC he has no other submission nor has any documents.

 

Law is well settled.  

M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004, it was inter alia held as follows:   

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. 

 

In view of this judgment, the contention of the Ld. Counsel that OP has one of its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is rejected, and the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant which he may filed before the Commission of appropriate jurisdiction.

Photocopy of the complaint and copy of order be retained & original file be returned to complainant.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent the complainant free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.