Territorial jurisdiction of district consumer foru
vinod bansal
(Querist) 15 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
territorial jurisdiction of district consumer foru
R/Sir Kindly provide me any citation in given situation where a vehicle was purchased & finaced from telmos Hisar and was also insured by Telmos Hisar as the telmos is agent of Reliance Gen Ins at Hisar.There is no branch office of Reliance at Hisar,this vehicle was stolen from Delhi but complaint was filed at Hisar by impleading Telmos as one of the opposite party.Now telmos has filed a application with a prayer to exonerate from the array of respondents.Our case is that as the vehicle was insured with reliance through their agent Telmos so DCDRF Hisar has territorial jurisdiction and telmos is necessary party,now case is fixed for 18-2-13 for orders,kindly provide me any citation Sir.Thanx in anticipation.regards Vinod Bansal Adv Jind
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 16 February 2013
Since Telmos has office at Hisar, the claim can be lodged from Hisar and the case can be filed in Hisar as well.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 16 February 2013
search indiankanoon.com.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 February 2013
National Consumer Commission
C. Case No.50/2009
Subrat Mishra,
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Promod Kumar Mishra,
At : Bhaliapadar,
Ps/Dist : Boudh…………..………………Complainant
-Versus-
1. Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co Ltd.
Bikash Plaza market complex, Main Road, Phulbani,
At/Po: Phulbani.
Dist : Kondhamal.
2. Er.Rabi Narayan Tripathy
Surveyor and Loss Assessor
C/o. P.K.Hota, Opp. Budharaja High School
Pradhanpara Gali (LIC-1)
Dist : Sambalpur.
3. Suvendu Pattnaik,
S/o.Banabihari Pattnaik
Agent New India Assurance Cor. Ltd. Boudh.
At/Po/Dist: Boudh………………………Opposite parties.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :7.5.2009.
Date of final order :27.11.2009
Present: Sri S.K.Mohapatra, M.A.LLB, President,
Sri T.R.Agrawalla LL.B, Member &
Smt. Sunita Dalal. LLB, Lady Member
For the complainant: In person.
Advocate for the O.P.No.1 and 3: Sri B.B. Pattnaik And Sri O.P.Mishra
For the O.P.No.2: Exparte.
FINAL ORDER
Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice , this complaint was filed against the O.P.members claiming Rs.91,886/- towards insurance claim alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation respectively from the O.Ps..
The chronicle of the dispute in concise is that, being the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.OR/02 AB-5821 the complainant entered into an insurance policy of the O.Ps. and the vehicle was duly insured by the O.P.No.1 in motivating by the O.P.No.3 vide policy No.550603/31/7/01/0000401.The complainant further stated that he had with ample faith upon the version of O.P.No.3 that, the company has takes utmost care and provide proper service the complainant interested to insure his vehicle under the company O.P.No.1 instead of other insurance company.
On 4.12.2007 the said vehicle met an accident near Madhpur under Charichhak Police Station of Boudh District due to sudden break fail and receives massive damages. Soon after the accident the complainant intimated the O.P.No.1 about the incident, who advised him for immediate shifting of the vehicle to a suitable garage for its repairing. Accordingly the complainant shifted the vehicle to a garage at Sambalpur namely Jhantu Car Garage. On subsequent stage the O.P.No.1 deputed O.P.No.2 to the said garage for assessment of damage where the vehicle was kept for its repairing. The complainant submitted the claim application amounting of Rs.91,886/- on account of repairing , labour charges and cost of spare parts before the O.P. no- 1 for its payment. On the other hand the O.P.No.2 prepared a vague and imaginary assessment of Rs.28,504/- by ignoring the expenditure made by the complainant. Not only that the O.P.No.2 reduced the assessment to Rs.24,257/- arbitrarily and further reduce the assessment from time to time and make it final at Rs.17,300/-(Ext.10) to which the complainant strongly protested. But the O.Ps did not listen his implore in a careless manner. On the other hand the complainant contended that, the O.Ps were making conspiracy by advising him for immediate shifting of the vehicle from the accident spot. As such here at this stage demanding the copy of F.I.R when assessment process is already over is not only improper but also aimed only to harass the complainant as the complainant not agreed to pay the illegal gratification as demanded by all the O.Ps. The complainant further stated that, he has already submitted all the relevant documents require for settlement of the claim, but only to harass him as he protested the illegal attitude of the O.Ps, they jointly harassed the complainant by ignoring his genuine claim. With the above attitude the reputation of the company is deteriorated day by day for which all the O.Ps are responsible.
On the other hand the O.P.No.1 and 3 entered into their appearance and filed W.S. separately where as the O.P.No.2 did not appeared in this dispute although he had given several opportunities and ultimately set exparte on 17.7.2009.
The prime contention of the contested O.Ps are that, absolutely no specific allegation against O.P.No.3 is mention in the complaint petition filed by the complainant and the complainant never approached him for any assistance in settlement of the claim. As such the present dispute is not maintainable against him.
So far the contention of the O.P.No.1 is concerned, the present dispute is not maintainable in this Forum, rather it is a fit case to be filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal since it relates to motor accident. Further he alleged that, the complainant failed to produce required documents before the O.P.No.1 in spite of several letter issued to him. The O.P. categorically stated that, the complainant was never informed the O.P.No.1 about the accident before shifting of vehicle. However after receive information on 6.12.2009 i.e. two days after the occurrence he deputed the surveyor cum loss assessor for assessment of the damage of the vehicle. As such the O.P.No.1 has not deficient in settling the claim of the complainant. But the complainant was failed to produce the required documents although he under take to produce the same.
In view of pleadings, documents, evidence and contention advanced by the parties the question for consideration are:-
a) Whether the dispute is maintainable under C.P.Act?
b) Whether the complainant produced the required documents before the O.P.No.1 for settlement of his claim?
c) Whether the O.Ps deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
d) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed for through his complaint petition?
As regard the first question for consideration, admittedly the present dispute is relating to a claim for accidental benefit by the complainant for the damage of his vehicle i.e Bolero XL vide Registration No.OR02 AB-5821 as he paid the annual premium to the O.Ps.’ company. But the prime allegation of the complainant is for deficiency in rendering service and un fair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. by making delay in settlement of the claim and less amount assessed for the loss sustained by him , which can not be decided in the M.A.C. Tribunal. So in this regard we do not accepted the contention of the O.Ps that, the present dispute is exclusively triable by M.A.C Tribunal. In our opinion the O.Ps are raised this plea only to lingering the process. Where ever the dispute filed by the complainant for its trial, the insurance company have to pay the claim, but the claimant can not get the relief on the head of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the service provider i.e. the employee of the O.Ps.’ company un less the dispute is filed before this Forum. So many cases like the present dispute were decided by the upper courts under the provision of C.P.Act. A large number of decisions are published in different journal relating to this Act. As such the dispute is maintainable before this Forum and nothing has been wrong on the part of the complainant to file this dispute in this Forum.
Coming to the second question for consideration it is to be stated that, for settlement of a claim, the claimant has to submit the documents relating to premium payment receipt R.C.Book, F.I.R to ascertain the alleged incident, fitness certificates, N.O.C, Driving license, road permit etc before the concerned sanctioning authority. Even though there are several decisions of the apex court as well as National Commission that, the insurance company can not repudiate the claim even there is no valid DL of the driver driving at the time of accident. However, here in this dispute the complainant submitted almost all documents except the copy of F.I.R before the O.P No.1 which only meant to ascertain whether the accident took place or not.
In our observation the O.P.No.1 has no hesitation with regard to accept the fact of accident of the vehicle for which he already directed his staff to intimate the processing for settlement of claim. As such the O.P.No.1 should not raise the question of submitting the copy of F.I R at this stage as because since inception of this dispute the complainant submitted that he shifted the vehicle from the sport with the prior intimation and decision of the O.P.No.1 although the O.P.No.1 denied the same. But he admitted that he received the information after two days of incident i.e. 6.12.2009.Here question arises if at all lodging of F.I.R is so necessary he could have instructed the complainant to lodge the F.I.R in the concerned P.S soon after receive the intimation from the complainant and the O.P.No.1 could have close the claim of the complainant at the initial stage. Rather it has been now accepted that the O.P.No.2 has initiated the process and directed the Surveyor for assessment only because the fact of accident of the vehicle is true and as such the claim of the O.P.No.1 for producing the copy of F.I.R is a superflus at this stage and is nothing but to harass the complainant only as the O.P. has already started the processing for settlement of the claim by ignoring the requirement of F.I.R in his sweet will.
So far the other documents which are most important for settlement of the claim i.e payment of premium in support of validity of policy, N.O.C from the appropriate authority, fitness certificate, route permit (Ext.13), R.C Book, bills and stamped receipt for payment made to garage, Driving license are all produced by the complainant before the O.P.No.1 and copy of all such documents filed in this dispute which marked Exhibits during course of hearing of the dispute. Although those documents were submitted before the O.P.No.1 he repeatedly asked the complainant to submit the papers again and again. Another important aspect in respect of harassment action of the O.P.No.1 is that, he asked the complainant to submit trip sheet which is not at all require for the settlement of the present claim of the complainant. This document is only necessary if the incident take place out side the state of Orissa. But only to linger the process, the O.P. repeatedly asked the complainant to supply such type of superflus document for which naturally the complainant stain mental anguish. Ext.7 and 8 shows that, the complainant submitted all the vouchers of expenditure in repairing of vehicle and acknowledged the same. But the O.P again sent the letter (Ext.A) to produce the bills and other documents soon after directed by this Forum for early settlement of the claim of the complainant with a malafide intention. As such in our opinion the complainant had already produced all the required documents before the O.P.No.1, but with an ulterior motive the concerned O.P. asked him to produce same again and again only to patch up the lacuna from his side in settling the claim at an early date.
As regard the third question for consideration, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the O.P.No.1 along with other O.Ps deliberately harassed the complainant and make unnecessarily delay for about two years in settlement of the genuine claim of the complainant although the complainant submitted all short of important documents for settlement of the claim. The O.P.No.2, the Surveyor and loss assessor has unnaturally assessed the damage and loss sustained by the complainant to the amount of Rs.17300/-(Ext.10/1) against the claim of Rs.91,886/- which is quite unnatural and improper in our opinion. with this it is very clear that, the calculation of the said O.P. is nothing but prepared in a haphazard manner which is not binding on the complainant. As the O.Ps are acting in such a negligent manner in settlement of the claim, they have made accused for the deficiency in rendering service and adopted unfair practice towards the complainant.
So far the last but not least question for our consideration is concerned, the complainant has already suffer a lot due to the unfair practice practiced by the O.Ps for settlement of his genuine claim. During course of hearing the complainant also raised an allegation against all the O.Ps categorically that they have demanded from him the illegal gratification for early and genuine settlement of his claim to which the complainant did not agree. So far the earlier dispute vide C.C.No-31/2008is concerned, the said dispute was disposed of only due to file at premature stage although the unfair practice and deficiency in rendering service of the O.Ps was discussed in the said order. As such if the O.Ps intended heartily to settle the matter they could have settle the dispute only after receive the direction from this Forum made in C.C.31/2008. But as their intention to harass the complainant again they forced the complainant to file the present dispute. The company employee should always look after how to manage a dispute by providing advice to the illiterate consumer who obviously do not know about the procedure in settlement of the claim. Sitting in the office by simply threw some letters to the complainant which naturally increases the mental aguish of the complainant day by day. As such the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation from the O.Ps. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The Branch Manager ( O.P.No-1 ) who is represented to, New India Assurance Co Ltd., Phulbani is directed to pay Rs.91,886/(rupees ninety one thousand eight hundred eighty six) only towards the claim of the insured/complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this dispute i.e.7.5.2009 till its payment. The interest amount will be recovered personally from the O.P.No.1 as he deliberately makes delay in settlement of the claim again and again. The New India assurance Co.Ltd is further directed to pay a moderate compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand ) along with Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand ) only towards compensation and cost of litigation respectively to the complainant. This order is to carry out within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take necessary action against the O.P.u/s 27(1) C.P.Act.The complaint against O.P.No.2 and 3 is dismissed without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 27th day of November, 2009.
