The Consumer Redressal Commission can entertain complaints regarding insurance reimbursements despite claims related to motor accidents, as jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the complaint and the qualifications of the claimant under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

1. The petitioner herein is a General Insurance Company, and this writ petition is submitted being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam in I.A No.1510/2024 in C.C No.580/2023. The said complaint was submitted by the 1^st respondent herein, who obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner, as a private car package policy, in respect of the vehicle purchased by him. On 24.01.2023, the said vehicle hit against an electric transformer owned by the 2^nd respondent- Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd (KSEBL) and the 2^nd respondent raised a claim of Rs.68,437/-, based on the estimate prepared by them, as damages.

2. According to the 1^st respondent/complainant, the vehicle was detained by the KSEBL authorities, and in order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the said amount. As according to the 1^st respondent, the vehicle was covered with a package policy covering the 3^rd party risk, including property damage, the 1^st respondent approached the petitioner seeking reimbursement of the said amount. As the same was not materialized, a complaint was submitted before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam by filing C.C No. 580/2023, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. In the said complaint, apart from the petitioner, the officer concerned of the KSEBL was also a party. In the aforesaid complaint, I.A No.1510/2024 was submitted by the petitioner, raising the question of jurisdiction and the same was considered by the Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission as a preliminary issue.

3. After hearing all the parties concerned, Ext.P5 order was passed by the District Commission, rejecting the said contention and holding that, the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same.

4. I have heard Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Adv.George A Cherian appearing for the petitioner and Sri.B.Premod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, by virtue of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a clear bar in entertaining a complaint of this nature, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was pointed out that, since the basic question that arises for consideration in the complaint relates to the compensation payable to a third party in a motor accident, the same can only be adjudicated in a proceeding under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the conclusion arrived by the District Commission as per Ext.P5 holding that the complaint is maintainable, is not justifiable. The learned Senior Counsel brought the attention of this Court, to various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Section 175 and also the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council,(1995) 2 SCC 479.

6. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as far as Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the same prohibits the jurisdiction of other Courts including Civil Courts, from considering any claim for compensation, which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. The said provision reads as follows:

“Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts.—Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.”

7. While trying to understand the purpose and scope of Section 175, it is to be noted that, the p