Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
P.S. Rana, President, Vijay Pal Khachi, Sunita Sharma, Members
KESAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 71 of 2018
Decided On : 12-04-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Virender Sharma vice Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 15, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - 12, 64UM(2) of Insurance Act, 1938 - The judgment discusses the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Mandi (H.P) in relation to the consumer complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It highlights the incorporation of the hypothecation agreement in the original insurance policy and the demand for documents from the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandi (H.P). The judgment also emphasizes the legal entitlement of the complainant to compensation, litigation costs, and the requirement for the submission of NOC from the financier.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking the settlement of an O.D. claim for a vehicle that was insured with the opposite parties. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The State Commission, however, found that part of the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Mandi (H.P) and partly allowed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the learned District Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the consumer complaint. It also held that the complainant was entitled to the O.D. claim, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs. The court further ordered the submission of NOC from the financier and the execution of a subrogation deed in favor of the Insurance Company.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, entitlement to O.D. claim, compensation, and litigation costs, and the requirement for NOC from the financier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the accrual of part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, the incorporation of the hypothecation agreement in the original insurance policy, and the legal entitlement of the complainant to compensation and litigation costs.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was partly allowed, and the order of the learned District Forum was set aside. The court ordered the submission of NOC from the financier, the payment of the O.D. claim, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs. It also mandated the execution of a subrogation deed in favor of the Insurance Company.
ORDER :
P.S. Rana, President—Present appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 27.2.2018 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 317/2015, titled Kesar Singh v. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Kesar Singh complainant filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No. HP-66-1831. It is pleaded that vehicle was driven by complainant himself to earn his livelihood. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 16.4.2014 to 15.4.2015. It is pleaded that IDV value of vehicle was Rs. 3,62,523 (Three lacs sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) and premium to the tune of Rs. 24,146 (Twenty four thousand one hundred forty six) was paid to opposite parties by complainant.
3. It is pleaded that on dated 29.10.2014 vehicle was loaded with wheat from Hoshiarpur to Karga (Keylong) District Lahaul and Spiti and when said vehicle was on its way from Karga (Keylong) to Mandi on 4.11.2014 after unloading the wheat and when said vehicle reached at place near Gulaba at about 1.30 a.m. due to some mechanical defect the brakes of vehicle failed and said vehicle rolled down about 300 ft. from road and vehicle was totally damaged in accident. It is further pleaded that rapat was also filed in Police Station Manali on dated 5.11.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. It is pleaded that matter was reported to opposite parties and vehicle was inspected by Surveyor-Cum-Loss Assessor of opposite parties on 5.11.2014. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of entire O.D. claim to the tune of Rs. 3,62,523 (Three lacs sixty two thousand five hundred twenty three) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing consumer complaint till actual payment. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 (Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) for litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that opposite parties have already paid the amount as assessed by Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor to financier of complainant. It is pleaded that claim was settled on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000 (Two lac thirty thousand). It is pleaded that financier is necessary party. It is pleaded that present matter could not be disposed of in summary manner and complainant be relegated to Civil Court. It is admitted that complainant is registered owner of vehicle in question. It is pleaded that jurisdiction of learned District Forum, Mandi is not disputed. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. It is pleaded that there was total loss to vehicle and complainant is legally entitled to entire IDV of vehicle mentioned in Insurance policy. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint and held that District Forum, Mandi has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether part of cause of action accrued to complainant within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum, Mandi (H.P) when hypothecation agreement relating to vehicle in question executed within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum
