AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-SINCE the tractor belonging to the complainant met with an accident, the complainant who had insured the tractor with the opposite party made a claim to the opposite party who repudiated the same and hence the complaint.
THE opposite party justified their repudiation stating that there was an unauthorized user and breach of condition in that the tractor carried another person besides the driver which is in contravention of the condition of the policy and that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The lower Forum rejected the ground of repudiation and awarded a sum of Rs. 51,191.95 to the complainant as compensation with interest and cost. Hence the appeal.
The repudiation on the ground that the tractor carried another person though it was prohibited under the policy condition was turned down by the lower Forum. It is admitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 15/- by way of additional premium for liability for paid driver/workman No. 1. This is seen from the policy itself where we find it detailed as follows: Liability to public-basic Rs. 120/-, legal liability to passengers-0.00, Add: liability for paid driver/workman No. 1 Rs. 15/- Add: TPPD Cover for unlimited amount Rs. 25/-, for loading trailer Rs. 80/-. The net premium has been arrived at Rs. 796/- inclusive of service tax. Therefore, the cover extends not only to the driver of the tractor but also to one workman. The FIR relating to the accident makes mention clearly that on that day as instructed by the proprietor, the driver of the lorry took the load man along with him for the purpose of loading cattle feed from Ramunaicker Mill, when the accident took place. Therefore, in such circumstances, the repudiation on this ground cannot hold good.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant namely the opposite party would raise the contention of jurisdiction. The policy has been issued by the Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company situated at Sarada College Road, Salem. The insured has given his address as Natesan, Thanneer Pandal Kadu, Ullipuram Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District. The accident took place at Ullipuram which falls within the police limits of Thammapatti, Salem District. The premium was admittedly paid only at Salem. Therefore, the entire cause action for this claim has arisen only in Salem District. The insurer, the insured, the vehicle which was the subject-matter of the insurance, the accident are all have been at Salem. While so, it is not known how a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chennai can have jurisdiction. Just because the Regional Office is situated at Chennai, it is not possible to hold that the Forum at Chennai will have jurisdiction. It is also to be pointed out that the complainant has nowhere stated either in his notice or in the complaint that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Chennai Forum. Therefore, merely because the Regional Office of the Insurance Company happens to be at Chennai, the complaint cannot be laid in Chennai when no part of the cause of action has arisen at Chennai. The mere location of registered office of the Insurance Company at Chennai cannot permit the invocation of jurisdiction of the Chennai Forum. Therefore, in such circumstances, we hold that the complaint having been laid before a Forum which has no territorial jurisdiction, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In view of our finding on the question of jurisdiction, it follows that the order passed by the lower Forum has to be set aside.
IN the result, this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without cost. The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. Appeal allowed.