J .B.GARG - (1.) Ramesh Kumar Podwal r/o House No. 170, Sector 18/A, Chandigarh instituted this complaint claiming Rs. 1,98,000/ - the estimated price of ornaments and clothes which he and his wife were carrying but stolen while travelling in a private bus between Pathankot and Dina Nagar during day time on 21.12.89.
(2.) BRIEFLY it has been alleged that the complainant possessed an Insurance Policy against theft and arson which was for the period 14.2.89 to 15.2.90. It was issued in his favour after verification of the premises bearing No. 170, Sector 18/A, Chandigarh. The theft of clothes and ornaments which he and his -wife were carrying in a safari suit case took place between Pathankot and Dina Nagar at or near Village Jhab Khera. He also lodged a report at Police Station Dina Nagar as DD No. 18 of 22.12.89. The price of gold ornaments has been mentioned as Rs. 1,26,000/ - and the price of other articles is mentioned as Rs. 1,30,000/ -. The complainant also claimed interest @ 18% per annum and damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of mental suffering. The New India Assurance Company, the respondent filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the occurrence took place near Dina Nagar and the policy was issued by their Ludhiana Office, no cause of action arose at Chandigarh and this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Besides this another important plea is that the policy in question was 'House Holders' and the goods were not at the premises insured at the time of the alleged occurrence. The complainant neither produced tickets nor could disclose the number of the bus or name of the transport company by which he and his wife were travelling. The respondent got the matter investigated by Shri S.S. Sachar, retired Asstt. Inspector General of Police and he found that the allegations were totally false and the claim was rightly repudiated.
(3.) THE complainant was in journey in Punjab between Pathankot and Dina Nagar. The insurance policy was executed at Ludhiana and mere fact that there is an office of New India Assurance Company at Chandigarh as well could not confer jurisdiction in such a case especially when the local Insurance Authorities have not even been impleaded as a respondent.;