State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saudagar Gyandev Karad vs The Manager, on 17 March, 2015
1 FA/97/2012
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 29/03/2012
Date of order : 17/03/2015
FIRST APPEAL No : 97 of 2012.
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO : 181 OF 2009.
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR.
Saudagar Gyandev Karad
R/o.Wangdari Tq.Renapur,
Dist. Latur. APPELLANT
VERSUS
The Manager
ICICI Lombar General Insurance Company Ltd
Alaknanda Ist and IInd Floor,
Adalat road, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT
Coram : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.R.B.Deshpande for the appellant.
Adv.Shri.V.N.Upadhye for the respondent.
JUDJGMENT ( Delivered on 17th March 2015 ) Per.Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 17/02/2012 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur in CC.No. 181/2009 whereby complaint is dismissed. The respondent is the original opponent. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as the 2 FA/97/2012 "Complainant" and the respondent is the "opponent insurance company".
2. The complainant case in a nutshell is that he had obtained private car insurance policy for his vehicle namely Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No. MH-24-C-4679 from the opponent insurance company. The policy period was 15/10/2006 to 14/10/2007. The policy included own damaged benefit. That on 14/11/2006 the said vehicle while proceeding towards Sangli met with an accident and one person travelling in the vehicle died on the spot and vehicle also sustained heavy damages. The accident took placed in the jurisdiction of the police Naldurga Tq Tuljapur Dist. Osmanabad. Police case was registered and the incident of accident was intimated to the opponent insurance company.
3. The opponent insurance company appointed surveyor who made survey and the vehicle was sifted for repairing at Indo Mobile Latur i.e. the authorized dealer of Mahindra Sales and Service Centre. That the expenditure incurred for repairs Rs 2,30,990/- and submitted claim proposal with the opponent insurance company. However, the claim was repudiated by its letter dated 15/05/2007 on the ground that the policy was obtained from the private vehicle and the same was registered with RTO as "LMV Tourist Taxy". The complainant therefore filed complaint before the Dist. Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opponent insurance company to pay repair charges of Rs 2,30,990/- and further Rs 3 FA/97/2012 10,000/- towards mental and Rs 10,000/- as the cost of the complaint.
4. The opponent insurance company appeared before the Dist. Consumer Forum and by way of its written version denied the claim of the complainant. It was contended that the complaint before the Dist. Consumer Forum was not tenable on the point of jurisdiction. It was submitted that, the complainant insured his vehicle in question with the opponent insurance company at Aurangabad and therefore the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter. It was further contended that the vehicle was registered as LMV Tourist Taxy however, the policy was obtained as "Private Car Policy" and therefore the complainant was not entitled to receive the benefit of the said policy. Hence, it was contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by its letter dated 15/05/2007. It is on these grounds it was requested to dismiss the complaint.
5. The Dist. Consumer Forum after considering the evidence on record and after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. It is held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that as per the RC book of the said vehicle it is mentioned that the said vehicle is registered as LMV Tourist Taxy. It is further observed that the decision of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Petition No. 334/2006 as produced by the complainant, the same is not applicable as it pertain to third party claim whereas the complaint before the Dist. Consumer 4 FA/97/2012 Forum is about own damage claim. Thus it is in keeping with these observations the complaint is dismissed by the Dist. Consumer Forum through its impugned judgment and order.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed in this Commission which came tobe finally heard on 11/03/2015. Adv.Shri.R.B.Deshpande for the appellant was present. None was present for the respondent however, its counsel Shri.Upadhye was present on earlier date. Both the counsel have already submitted their written notes of arguments. We also heard Adv.Shri. Deshpande for the complainant finally and matter was reserved for judgment and order.
7. We have perused the record placed before us containing copies of the complaint, written version filed by the opponent insurance company, police paper, repairs papers, registration particulars along with RC book, Judgment and order dated 24/06/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Petition No. 334/2006, impugned judgment and order, appeal memo, written notes of arguments as submitted by both the parties and other relevant documents
8. Before we proceed to the merit of the case we have to consider the point of territorial jurisdiction of the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur to entertain and decide the present complaint. From the perusal of written version filed by the opponent insurance company 5 FA/97/2012 before the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur it had challenged the complaint basically on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy for his said vehicle from opponent insurance company branch office at Aurangabad. The complainant has paid the premium amount to the said office at Aurangabad. Thus the contract in between the complainant and opponent insurance company has taken place at Aurangabad. The accident of the vehicle has taken place in Osmanabad District. As per the Sub Sec. II (a) of Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Act jurisdiction of the Dist. Consumer Forum to entertain complaints is where the opposite party, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily reside or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. However, in the present case there is no pleading of the complainant that the opponent insurance company has its branch office at Latur. Therefore since the complainant has made the transaction regarding obtaining of the said policy has taken place at Aurangabad, the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
9. It is however, surprising to note that despite challenging the complaint on the point of jurisdiction by the opponent insurance company the judgment and order passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum is totally silent on this legal point, In fact considering the statutory provision it was obligatory on the part of the Dist. Consumer Forum to decide the issue of point of jurisdiction 6 FA/97/2012 especially when it is specifically made by the opponent insurance company. In fact that the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur ought to have decided the issue of jurisdiction before deciding the merit of the case.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations and legal provisions we have no alternative but to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order by giving liberty to the present appellant / complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist.
Consumer Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The appellant / complainant is at liberty to seek remedy for his grievance before the appropriate Dist. Consumer Forum with directions to consider the period spent by the complainant in the proceedings before the Dist. Consumer Forum, Latur and State Commission bench at Aurangabad for condoning the delay if any.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
K.B.Gawali S.M.Shembole
Member Presiding Judicial Member
A.H.Patil
Steno H.G.
7 FA/97/2012