State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahesh Menon,Chennai - 87 vs M/S. The New India Assurance Co. ... on 22 October, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.199/2007 (Against order in O.P.NO.317/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 Mahesh Menon S/o. Hari Dass Flat No.1-A, 5th Block Ceebros Park, Valasaravakkam Chennai - 87 Appellant/ Complainant Vs. 1.
M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager Ambattur Branch, C-33, II Avenue Near Anna Nagar West Post Office Anna Nagar, Chennai 40
2. M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Alwar, 301 001, Rajasthan State
3. M/s. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Manager No.770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai -2 Respondents/ Opposite parties The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents /opposite parties, praying for the direction to pay the policy amount, to pay Rs.50000/- towards compensation, Rs.15000/- as cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.01.2007 in CC. No.317/2005.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 12.10.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the material papers on record, lower court orders, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order :
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Mr. S. Arokia Maniraj, Advocate Respondents/ Opposite parties: M/s. Nageswaran & Narichania, Advocate M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant/appellant, being the owner of a motorcycle, bearing Regn. No.TN-02J-2293, Hero Honda Splender, insured the same, with 2nd opposite party, at Alwar, for the period from 9.9.2003 to 8.9.2004. On 10.6.2004, when he had left the motorcycle, near Raj Rishi College, Alwar, somebody stolen the vehicle, for which a complaint was given to the police, giving intimation to the 2nd opposite party also, on the same day. After investigation, the police authorities informed that the vehicle is not traceable.
3. The 2nd opposite party, appointing a surveyor, investigated the claim, but failed to pay the amount, though the complainant had lodged the claim, for the loss of the motorcycle, insured. An attempt was made, at request of the 1st and 3rd opposite party, to transfer the registration, to Madras, not materialized. Because of the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, in not honouring the policy, by paying the assured amount, they have caused mental agony, and other problems, to the complainant, for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50000/- as well as expenses of Rs.15000/-, in addition to payment of the assured amount, as per the policy. Hence the claim.
4. The District Forum, considering the place, where the policy had been taken, as well where the motorbike was stolen, viz. Alwar, at Rajasthan, dismissed the complaint, concluding that no part of cause of action, had arisen within its jurisdiction, and in this view, the Forum has no jurisdiction, giving liberty to file a fresh complaint, before the forum at Rajasthan, within two months as per the order dt.10.1.2007, which is under challenge.
5. The complainant is at present residing within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Chennai (South). The 1st and 3rd opposite parties office are also situated within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, Chennai (South). The 2nd opposite party, is not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai (South) admittedly, the address being M/s.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Alwar, 301 001, Rajasthan State. A careful reading of the complaint would indicate, that for the claim in the complaint, all the cause of action had taken place, or arisen only at Alwar, Rajasthan State, including the taking of policy, as well as the theft of the motorcycle, as well lodging the claim. Despite this fact, the complainant has filed the case before the District Forum, Chennai (South), as if it has jurisdiction, alleging that cause of action had partly arisen at Madras, because of the previous policy taken by him, for the same vehicle, which is absurd. The District Forum correctly understanding the case, dismissed the complaint, not affecting the right of the complainant also, giving liberty to the complainant for approaching proper forum. The complainant, instead of working out his remedy before the For a having jurisdiction, in our considered opinion, prefered an appeal, which is vexatious, and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost, for that we record our reasons hereunder.
6. A Motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 02 J-2293, belonged to the complainant, is an admitted fact. The theft, had taken place on 10.6.2004, near Raj Rishi College, Alwar, at Rajasthan State, is also not challenged. Only within the 2nd opposite party, the complainant had taken policy No.JRO 129927, for the period from 9.9.2003 to 8.9.2004, on which basis alone, a claim was made, and if at all the 2nd opposite party, is entitled to reimburse the value of the stolen motorcycle, subject to terms and conditions of the said policy, and not on anyother policy. When the complainant was at Madras, it seems, he had taken policy for the same motorcycle, with the 1st or 3rd opposite party, for the period from 13.7.00 to 12.7.01, which expired, by efflux of time. Therefore, that policy will not give any part of cause of action, since admittedly, the complainant cannot claim any amount, on the basis of the expired policy, when the motor cycle was stolen by somebody.
Therefore, admittedly, a claim is based upon the policy, covering the period 9.9.2003 to 8.9.2003, which was taken at Alwar at Rajasthan, not within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Chennai.
Only in order to vest the jurisdiction, probably avoiding to go to Rajasthan, in our considered opinion, a case has been filed, frivolously on false allegations, which was rightly taken note of by the District Forum.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, argued that part of cause of action had arisen, even for this claim, within the jurisdiction of the of the District Forum, Chennai (South), and in this view, it has jurisdiction, in view of the fact, the branch office of the New India Assurance company, is also situated, within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Chennai (South). As seen from the pleadings, as well as the documents, it appears, a letter was addressed to the RTO, Chennai, for transferring the insured vehicle, in the name of the opposite parties corporation, to expedite the settlement of the complainants claim, for which 3rd opposite partys authorized signatory also signed. It is not known, how the registration of the vehicle could be transferred, when the vehicle itself was not available, because of the admitted fact, that on 10.6.2004, somebody stolen the vehicle. Therefore, creating certain documents, obtaining the signature of the 2nd opposite party, or the 3rd opposite party, as the case may be, if any attempt has been made, to transfer the Registration Certificate, that will not give cause of action for the claim, the fact being, that has nothing to do with the claim also. As indicated above, the claim is purely based upon the policy, taken by the complainant at Alwar, with the 2nd opposite party, for the theft, which had taken place at Rajasthan. Except these two incidents, for the claim, there cannot be anyother cause of action, and these two cause of action had not arisen within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, Chennai (South), and therefore we are undoubtedly clear, that the District Forum, has no jurisdiction.
8. Sec.11(2) confers a consumer, to file a complaint, where the opposite party resides, carryon business, or has branch office, in whose jurisdiction, it lies.
If that section is read, plain meaning would indicate, wherever the branch office is available, a case can be filed, but that was not the intention of the legislature, as explained by the Supreme Court, in Sonie Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP). In the case involved also, for the cause of action arose at Ambala, a case has been filed at Union Territory, Chandigarh, State Commission, because of the branch office available therein.
Considering the actual cause of action, which had arisen, as well as the impact of Sec.17(2), Apex Court has ruled, though the consumer is empowered to file a case, where the branch office is available, there also the cause of action should have arisen, which is not the case, in the case before us. In paragraph 9, it is observed 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 Sec.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 Sec.17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequences. 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 Guwahati 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 Sec.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 Sec.17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
which dictum is binding on us.
Looking the case from this angle also, we are unable to find any error or flaw, in the order passed by the District Forum, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits with cost.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant. as last attempt, requested liberty to file the case, before the Forum concerned, which was already given by the District Forum. Therefore, it is needless for us, to give liberty, and if the law permits, the complainant can workout his remedy, according to law.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.317/2005 dt.10.1.2007, with cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the appellant/ complainant, to the respondents/ opposite parties.
S.SAMBANDAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/ TNEB