UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KRISHNA DEVI & ORS
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
Krishna Devi And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) MR . Bagga has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
(2.) WHILE challenging the order of District Forum, Una, in Consumer Complaint No.22/ 2007, decided on 19.9.2008, Mr. Bagga, learned counsel for the appellant raised following three contentions:
(a) that the accident had taken place in the State of Punjab, therefore District Forum, Una, had no jurisdiction;
(b) that respondent -Hari Krishan had no insurable interest in the vehicle because he had transferred the same to one Sh. Sukhwinder Singh prior to the date of accident. In this behalf Mr. Bagga referred to Annexure R10 and R11;and
(c) that the vehicle was 10 -seater and the driver was not authorized to drive it.
(3.) VEHICLE being insured under a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident with the appellant is not in dispute. It was a private vehicle is again established from the documents on record. As such, we are not noticing other facts which have been taken note of in detail in the impugned order by the District Forum below.
While dealing with first contention urged by Mr. Bagga, we may point out that appellant -Insurance Company has an office within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum at Una, which could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant. In this behalf, attention of the learned Counsel was drawn to Section ll(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to stretch this submission further. Admittedly there being an office of the appellant -Insurance Company within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum below, first contention urged is hereby rejected. According to Mr. Bagga, policy had been issued by Divisional Office, Naya Nangal, in the State of Punjab. This will not make any difference because as per provisions of law in case the opposite party at the time of institution of the complaint carries on business or has a branch within the jurisdiction of the Fora where the complaint is filed, such complaint would be maintainable. As such this plea merits rejection. Ordered accordingly.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.