Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 27 (UTT)

Harjinder Singh v. United India Insurance Co.

2003-03-12

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal have been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 21.11.2002 whereby the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the grounds of jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Sh. Harjinder Singh, complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum with the allegation that he has purchased a truck in 1995. He has not alleged in the complaint where he purchased it. In Para 3 of the complaint, he alleged that the truck was insured with the respondent No.1, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Jhumritalaya, Bihar. This may show that the insurance was made in Bihar. The truck fell down in Khad at Natwa Singh Patti near Paonta Saheb, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant gave the information to the Dehradun Branch of the respondent No.1. After investigation, the Divisional Manager repudiated the claim. It is, therefore, the petition was filed. The repudiation order was passed from the Branch Officer, Patna, Ranchi Road, Jhumritalaya. The truck was repaired in Dehradun. There is nothing in the complaint about jurisdiction. However, the plea of jurisdiction appears to have been taken before the learned Forum verbally and this is why the Form decided it as a preliminary issue. In the discussed judgment, the learned Forum held that he has got no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that since Dehradun has got a Branch Office of respondent No.1, Dehradun Forum has got jurisdiction. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 in the petition is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Jhumritalaya, Bihar. The second party, also, is only Branch Manager, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun Branch Office is not a branch office of the respondent No.1. If it may be the branch office of the Head Office. Branch office has been defined under the Act under Section 2 (aa) as : (i) any establishment described as a branch by the opposite party; or (ij) any establishment carrying on either the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the head office of the establishment. Jhumritalaya Branch Office has not described Dehradun as its branch. Actually, both are branches. The opposite party is the main insurance company at Madras d which has not infact, been made as a n party to the petition. Jhumritalaya Branch Office has not described Dehradun as its branch. Actually, both are branches. The opposite party is the main insurance company at Madras d which has not infact, been made as a n party to the petition. The Insurance Company could had been made party not e through its branch but through its head 1 office. Dehradun branch also does not carry on business as the head office of the •f Insurance Company carries on. In these circumstances, Dehradun being not a branch office within the meaning of the Act, petition could not have been filed merely on the ground as Dehradun is a branch office. Admittedly, no part of ' cause of action arose at Dehradun. The appellant produced the ruling reported in 2002 (2) UC [Uttaranchal Cases] 669, Durga Traders v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. passed by this Commission. This Commission held that the judgment of the District Forum is perfectly correct. This ruling is entirely against the appellant. He further referred the ruling reported in 1998 (II) CPJ 421, Vijay Bank v. K. V Singh and 2000 (III) CPJ 274, Dr. Nirmal Kumar Jain v. Maxworth Orchards. Both these rulings will also not apply because there was a branch office but this complaint the concept of branch office has incorrectly been developed. Dehradun is not a branch office of the branch of Jhumritalaya. Both are independent branch offices with a head office at Madras of which both may be independent branch offices. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Forum. The appeal is therefore dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, cost shall be easy. ORDER 4. The appeal is dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, cost shall be easy.