State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.B. Jagdish Prasad & Co vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 20 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 20.03.2008 Complaint Case No.07/176 M/s. R.B. Jagdish Prasad & Co. Complainant (Muzaffarnagar Cold Storage) through Mr. Neeraj Singh, Near Meeankshi Chowk advocate. Muzaffarnagar, UP. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite Parties Registered Office Oriental House, P.B. No.7030, A -25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. Complaint is being taken up at admission stage.
2. Complainant company obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy insuring the stocks stored at the Cold Storage for a total sum of Rs.2.60 crores. On 28.06.2006 there was heavy rainfall at Muzaffarnagar and adjoining area causing heavy water logging, flood and inundation resulting into damages to the Chamber No.2 of the Cold Storage. Consequently the complainant filed claim of Rs.20,91,000/- with the OP company. The OP company appointed surveyor who recommended that the damage was not caused due to flood or inundation caused by rainwater as per the policy. On 25.09.2006, the OP repudiated the claim as No Claim. The OP company informed that complainant that their claim was repudiating on the basis of the report of the surveyor who recommended that no insured peril having operated, which may have directly or indirectly contributed to damages occurred/causing devaluation of stocks of Chamber No.2 and therefore there was no liability for the insurer under the Fire policy.
3. There was no document on record showing assessment of the loss by the surveyor. Though the surveyor in his earlier report admitted that loss caused due to flood or inundation caused by the rainwater is covered under the policy. It was on physical inspection of the Cold Storage that the surveyor recommended for repudiation of the claim.
4. Since the policy was issued from Muzaffarnagar, branch of the OP and the property which was subject matter of the insurance policy was situated at Muzaffarnagar and the damage was also caused at Muzaffarnagar, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Merely because the OP has its head office in Delhi does not mean that cause of action has arisen wholly or partly in Delhi. As per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a complaint can be instituted at a place where the OP actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain and where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.
5. It was a godown, which was insured and the godown was situated in Muzaffarnagar so much so the policy was also obtained from Muzaffarnagar branch of the OP.
6. All the aforesaid facts persuade us to dismiss the complaint being not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 20th day of March, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri