Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.09 seconds)Section 64UM in The Insurance Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
The Insurance Act, 1938
M/S. Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 20 October, 2009
6. We have heard the counsels and perused the record. Having done so,
we firstly find some merit in the contention raised by Mr. Tripathi to the effect
that the State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 - complainant relied on para 23 of the State Commission's
order and the fact that the insurer's divisional office at Delhi, having
administrative control over the policy-issuing branch, and having financial
power in the matter, also made appointment of the surveyor, and therefore, the
cause of action to that extent arose at Delhi, and therefore, the Delhi State
Commission had rightly exercised the territorial jurisdiction. However, we note
that there is no dispute that the complainant's factory and the place of incident
of fire as. also the policy issuing Branch, are located at Meerut which is within
the territorial jurisdiction of U.R State Commission, and not of Delhi State
Commission. The administrative control by Division office of the OP on the
policy issuing office and appointment of surveyor by such Divisional Office has
nothing to do with the place of incident and the place of cause of action for the
complainant, apart from providing semblance of justification for exercise of
jurisdiction by Delhi State Commission. We are of the opinion that the State
Commission should have avoided exercising jurisdiction when the cause of
11
action has not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction and the parties are also not
located within its territorial jurisdiction, particularly when Supreme Court's
decision in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. (2010) SCC 135 referring
to Calcutta High Court's decision in IFB Automotive Vs. Union of India, 2003
AIR Cal.
Ifb Automotive Seating And System Ltd. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 16 May, 2002
6. We have heard the counsels and perused the record. Having done so,
we firstly find some merit in the contention raised by Mr. Tripathi to the effect
that the State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 - complainant relied on para 23 of the State Commission's
order and the fact that the insurer's divisional office at Delhi, having
administrative control over the policy-issuing branch, and having financial
power in the matter, also made appointment of the surveyor, and therefore, the
cause of action to that extent arose at Delhi, and therefore, the Delhi State
Commission had rightly exercised the territorial jurisdiction. However, we note
that there is no dispute that the complainant's factory and the place of incident
of fire as. also the policy issuing Branch, are located at Meerut which is within
the territorial jurisdiction of U.R State Commission, and not of Delhi State
Commission. The administrative control by Division office of the OP on the
policy issuing office and appointment of surveyor by such Divisional Office has
nothing to do with the place of incident and the place of cause of action for the
complainant, apart from providing semblance of justification for exercise of
jurisdiction by Delhi State Commission. We are of the opinion that the State
Commission should have avoided exercising jurisdiction when the cause of
11
action has not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction and the parties are also not
located within its territorial jurisdiction, particularly when Supreme Court's
decision in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. (2010) SCC 135 referring
to Calcutta High Court's decision in IFB Automotive Vs. Union of India, 2003
AIR Cal.
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
30 and Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Adani Experts,
AIR 2002 SC126 explaining the meaning of "cause of action" categorically were
relied upon by the petitioner insurer and were undoubtedly applicable.
However, after noting some prima facie arguable justification for such exercise
of jurisdiction by the State Commission on the ground of the Divisional Office of
the OP, which appointed the surveyor, is located in Delhi, and, after mainly
considering that a long time of nearly 27 years has passed from the date of fire,
we would rather decline to interfere on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Similarly, in our opinion, though there are sufficient grounds made out in the
investigation report to strongly suspect the self-infliction of fire in view of
cumulative factors of (i) preceding day loss in uncovered event for which (ii) the
FIR filed (theft) is at variance with the actual event (robbery, dacoity) as noted
in investigation report, (iii) the discrepancies in the statements of employees,
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009
A.K. Govil and Associates, the final Surveyor assessed the loss caused due to fire
submitted their report dated 29.9.2000 in which net loss assessed was to the tune on
Rs.29,60,437/-. This report regarding loss due to fire was based on the documents
and information which were provided by the complainant to the surveyor. Despite clear
report of loss to the tune of Rs.29,60,437/-, the insurance Company in its wisdom kept
the matter pending without any decision. They were only awoken after the
complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.4.2009 to the OP. The OP thereafter sent a
reply on 2.6.2009 informing the complainant that as per direction of the Regional
Office of the OP, the competent authority reviewed the matter and in the absence of
non-submission of required information/documents, construed that the insured had
nothing to reply. The Competent authority of the OP, therefore, reiterated its earlier
decision of treating the claim as "No claim". For this reason, the claim was not found
maintainable. It is interesting to note that both the complainant and the OP have relied
upon the ruling of the Hon'ble SC in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co.- Ltd. - (2009) 8 SCC 507. In this leading case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:
M/S. Veek Kay Cotsyn Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28 May, 2013
26. Complainant also relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission In
Vee Kay Cotsyn Ltd, Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. - III (2013) CPJ 66
(NC), wherein it was held that surveyor report has significant evidentiary value.
1