Present: Mr. Umang Gangwar, counsel for the Appellant, appeared through VC.

Mr. Kumar Alok, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – IX, (East-District), GNCT of Delhi, Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 167/2014 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint of the Appellant/Complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in the following terms:

“1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in repudiating the claim of the Complainant which have arisen on account of fire in the premises of the Complainant situated in Jammu. However, after going through the record the issue w.r.t. jurisdiction of this commission is also in dispute and therefore has to be adverted to. Therefore, the issue w.r.t. jurisdiction would be discussed and decided first.

2. Brief facts stated by the Complainant in the complaint, whose registered office is at Netaji Subhash Palace Delhi, are stated that the Complainant is engaged in the manufacturing/processing and packaging of agriculture/horticulture/agro chemicals, through its various units and one unit of the Complainant which was being used as processing unit was duly insured with the OP company having office of the OP at Connaught Circus, New Delhi for the period 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2021 for the standard fire and special perils policy. This insured premises of the complainant was situated at Industrial Growth Centre, Phase-l, Samba, Jammu and the insured amount was Rs.5,05,00,000/ - where a fire broke out. The matter was reported to the police station as well as the fire station and also the information w.r.t. losses were given to OP vide letter reference No. JSRUL/S/118 dated 17.07.2011 and it also lodged a claim to the extent of Rs.36,60,354/- whereafter OP appointed one M/s Sharma Surveyors, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,62,815/- only, in order to give benefit to its appointing authority, but without consideration of various conversation and communication. The Complainant raised the objection before the higher authority of the OP Company. The OP1 then appointed an Investigator namely Mr. KN S Sodhi who also failed to consider the claim and therefore the Complainant lodged a formal claim with the OP but the OP proceeded the matter with 'no claim' and as such repudiated the claim which necessitated the Complainant to file the present claim with the prayer that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1990000/- towards the loss of stock of finished/unfinished goods and other materials, Rs.5000/-towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses along with rate of 24%.

3. The OP was served and has filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable as this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the loss occurred in Jammu, the policy was issued from a branch situated at Panipat and therefore District Forum at Delhi does not have any jurisdiction. The OP have given offer letter for a sum of Rs.562815/- on the basis of report submitted by M/s Sharma Surveyors which was not accepted by the Complainant, which was even confirmed by K N S Sodhi, and the complaint is false and frivolous. It is further stated that the Complainant has concealed the material facts from the court and the complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of CP Act.

4. On merits the contents with respect to the policy are not disputed and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and it is specifically reiterated that OP had clarified all the problems to the Complainant and on account of no positive response from the Complainant it has closed the file as 'no