Ramesh Chand Garg son of Shri Harbilas, Proprietor M/s Balaji Marble House, New Mandi, Narnaul, Now residing at C/o Sumit Enterprises 60/16 Bada Bazar, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon COMPLAINANT VERSUS
1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager Corporate Office 4th & 5th Floor, IFFCO Tower, Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. through Agent/ Manager, Branch Office C/o Sarjeet Singh, Singhana Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh .. OPPOSITE PARTIES COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT BEFORE :- Budh Dev Yadav, President Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member Present:- Shri Manoj Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. Shri G. H. Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties ORDER:- The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had got his Scooter Honda bearing registration No.HR-35C-6045 insured from opposite party No.1. It is alleged that on 05.01.2011 the complainants son had gone to State Bank of Patiala, Gurgaon from where the Scooter was stolen and FIR No.09 dated 06.01.2011 under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station City Gurgaon. It is further alleged that the complainant had approached the opposite parties and submitted all the required documents, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed towards the claim of the complainant. It is also alleged that the untrace report submitted by the police was also accepted by the Court vide order dated 04.01.2012. Now the complainant has claimed the insured amount in addition to the compensation and costs by way of filing the present complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put in appearance and contested the complaint by way of filing the joint written statement. It is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the vehicle was left unattended by the complainant with keys in ignition switch and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim as he has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, letter of no claim was sent to the complainant on 26.03.2010. The opposite parties have requested for dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. At the very out set we have to see whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The policy in question Annexure C-8 has been issued by the Gurgaon office. The Scooter was also stolen from the area of State Bank of Patiala Branch Gurgaon and the FIR Annexure C-6 was also registered in Police Station City Gurgaon. Therefore, the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of District Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the office of opposite party No.1 is situated within the District Gurgaon and the cause of action also accrued at that place, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Rigid Global (India) Versus IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Others cited as II (2008) CPJ 365 vide which Honble Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur has held that the principal is liable for agents fraud/ misrepresentation, acting within scope of his authority. The facts of the referred case are not applicable to the present complaint as the observations made by the Honble State Commission are regarding liability of the agent for fraud and misrepresentation committed by the agent. Learned counsel also referred on Shakumbhri Exports Versus Leigh Hoegh and Company A/S and others cited as III (2008) CPJ 254 (NC) vide which the Honble National Commission, New Delhi has held that the complaint against the agent is maintainable where he is personally liable. In the present complaint, no personal liability of the agent has been alleged, therefore, this citation is also not applicable to the present complaint.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the complaint must have been filed at Gurgaon from where the policy in question was issued and the Scooter was also stolen. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the period during which the complainant has been prosecuting his complaint before this Forum with due diligence shall be excluded under Section 14-A of the Limitation Act for the purposes of calculation of limitation period. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. Announced:- 27.08.2015 (Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Budh Dev Yadav) Member Member President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul