Haryana

Karnal

CC/107/2022

Yajvendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Hardev Singh

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 107 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.02.03.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 03.03.2022

 

Yajvendra Kumar aged about 36 years son of Shri Jasraj Singh, resident of House no.341/16, AF, Block Badar Pur, South Delhi.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Third Floor, SCF-55, Main Market, Sector-6, Karnal, Haryana State Code-6, Pin-132001 through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd., # 401 Shalimar Logix, 4 Rana Parat Marg, Lucknow-226001, through its MD/CEO/Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties

 

      Complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Hardev Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

                The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant got insured his car from opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), vide, policy no.2367/60904017/SO/000 for a Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.7,20,000/- by paying premium amount of Rs.18,698/- and said insurance was valid from 02.02.2020 to 01.02.2021 midnight. On 21.03.2020 the said car of complainant was met with an accident in the area of Shahabad and in the said accident the car of the complainant was totally damaged and the driver of the car had also got serious injuries in the said accident. During those day there was lock down due to Covid-19 in the State, due to which the complainant was not able to lodge DDR in the concerned police station and was also not able to lodge insurance claim with the company of the OPs. After becoming condition of pandemic Covid-19 normal, on the request of complainant the police of Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra had lodged a DDR no.11 dated 19.09.2020 regarding the aforesaid accident. The complainant has also informed the OPs regarding the accident and had also lodged the insurance claim on account of total damage of the insured car and requested for disbursing the claim amount in his favour. Complainant had submitted all the requisite documents as per instruction of the company of the OPs. Thereafter, OPs had appointed a surveyor for verification of facts and inspection of damaged insured vehicle and OPs have also sought some documents from the complainant, which were duly submitted by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times for settlement of the claim but OPs lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and sent a letter dated 15.07.2021 mentioning therein that “the cause and nature of loss, mentioned in the claim form, is not consistent and does not tally with the damages of vehicle”, further in this letter the OPs wrongly mentioned that “there is an inordinate delay of about 314 days in the intimation of claim to insurance office”. However, by way of this letter OPs have not repudiated the claim and mentioned that “we reserve the right to extend or modify this declination should additional facts or circumstances become known to us”.

2.             It is further averred that delay in intimation to OPs as well as lodging DDR was not of 314 days as alleged in the aforesaid letter, whereas the delay was affected due to the then prevailing condition of Covid-19 and after becoming condition normal the complainant immediately lodged the DDR and also lodged claim, so the delay was not intentional and malafide. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs so many times and requested for settlement of the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.  

4.             Now the question arise before us for consideration whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not?

5.             Territorial Jurisdiction to file the complaint before the  District Commission defined in Section 34(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019  which 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

In the present case, as per the version of complainant, he resides at Badar Pur, South Delhi, accident took place at Shahabad, District Kurukshetra and policy in question was also issued at Lucknow (UP). Thus, no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Karnal. The learned counsel for complainant submits that the branch office of the OPs is situated at Karnal, and this Commission has very jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. We found no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. In this regard, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 379  this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint merely on the ground that the branch office is situated at Karnal. Hence, plea taken by the complainant has no force.

6.             In view of above discussion, the cause of action, if any, has arisen in Kurukshetra where the accident took place, Delhi, where the complainant is residing and in Lucknow where the policy in question was issued. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of territorial jurisdiction and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent jurisdiction, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.03.2022                                                              

                                                              President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                                 

                 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                      Member                          Member