BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

First Appeal No.FA/12/929

(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/07/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.338 of 2010 of South Mumbai District Forum)

Mr. Nayyer Alam Ahmed Azmi, Dhaligam, Post Bhilad, Valsad, Gujarat.	...........Appellant(s)
Versus
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., MRO-II, Maker Bhavan, 03^rd floor, Churchgate, Mumbai.	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. CHAVAN, PRESIDENT

HON’ABLE MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Adv. Manoj P. Raut instructed by Adv. Smt. S. R. Acharya for the Appellant Adv. Ghanshyam Patil instructed by Adv. Sanjay Mhatre for the Respondent

ORAL ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President

This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant is directed against an order dated 23/07/2012 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing Consumer Complaint No.338 of 2010 on the ground that cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction, as also, complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation.

[2] We have heard Adv. Manoj P. Raut instructed by Adv. Smt. S. R. Acharya on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant and Adv. Ghanshyam Patil instructed by Adv. Sanjay Mhatre on behalf of the Respondent/Insurance Company and with the help of both these learned counsel, we have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.

[3] Consumer complaint arose out of a claim for damage due to fire arising out of an insurance policy issued by Dahanu Branch of United India Insurance Company Ltd. While the fire took place at Dehaligam, Post Office Bhilad, District – Valsad, Gujarat; the consumer complaint was filed before South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum because the Respondent/original Opponent – United India Insurance Company Ltd., has an office at Churchgate, Mumbai. There is no dispute about the fact that Churchgate, Mumbai office of the Insurance Company controls its Dahanu Branch, which issued the policy, as well. The District Forum held that the complaint was filed before a District Forum which did not have the jurisdiction. We find that plain reading of Section-11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will bring the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum because the Respondent/Insurance Company has an office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and that office controls the branch office, which issued the insurance policy.

[4] As far as question of limitation is concerned, there is no repudiation of the claim, which in fact, was recommended by the surveyor appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company. We had asked learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company as to when the claim was repudiated? He stated that he had sent two e-mails to the Respondent/Insurance Company seeking a copy of letter of repudiation but, according to him, the Respondent/Insurance Company did not respond to these e-mails nor forwarded to him a copy of repudiation letter.

[5] If there is no repudiation of the insurance claim preferred by the Appellant/Complainant, there is no question of time starting to run against the Appellant/Complainant and the complaint could not have been held to be barred by limitation.

[6] Since, there was no adjudication of the consumer complaint on merits, we set aside the order passed by the District Forum and remand back the complaint to the file of the District Forum with a direction to the District Forum to dispose of the complaint as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year. Parties shall bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 08^th August, 2014 without issuance of any notice by the District Forum. Order accordingly.

Pronounced and dictated on 15^th July, 2014

[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. CHAVAN]

PRESIDENT

[HON’ABLE MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR]

MEMBER

KVS