DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. SOUTH MUMBAI DISTRICT CONSUMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed challenging the order dtd. 4/9/2019 passed by the 1st respondent in Complaint Nos.SMF/MUM/68, 67 and 66 /2009.

(2.) M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited is the petitioner [herein will be referred to as 'Insurance Company'] and both second respondents are close relatives. The second respondent had taken three separate standard fire and special perils policy from the petitioner's office at Dindigul as against the building and stocks at Deepam Urea Godown, Meenakshi Chettinayakkanpatty by pass road, Dindigul. While so on 5/8/2006 fire broke out in the said godown and cotton bales got damaged. In this connection a case in Crime No.186 of 2006 was registered in Thadikombu Police Station. Subsequently the second respondent made separate claim to the Insuarance Company that the fire broke out due to short circuit. Based on the claim made by the second respondent, the Insurance Company conducted a survey by the Surveyor, who had also filed his report. Further, according to the report of the Investigator dtd. 20/7/2007, there were certain irregularities in the claim made by the second respondent. Moreover, there was no electricity connection to the said godown and the fire did not break out due to electricity short circuit. Therefore the Insurance company rejected the claim of the second respondent. Subsequently the second respondent filed three separate complaints in respect of those policies before the first respondent District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, South Mumbai arraying the petitioner Insurance Company's Mumbai Office as respondent for the relief of compensation together with interest. Though the entire cause of action arose at Dindigul, the first respondent proceeded with the complaints and passed ex-parte order and based on the ex-parte order and directed the Insurance Company to pay laksh of rupees as compenasation, without even assigning a single reason. The second respondent also filed execution application against the petitioner's office at Mumbai. Therefore the petitioner Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the insurance policy was issued by the Divisional Officer at Dindigul. Payment of premium, storage of insured goods, the place of accident and place of claim all these had happened only at Dindigul. When the entire cause of action arose at Dinidgul, the Consumer Forum at Dindigul alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Counsel further submits that the second respondent has preferred complaint before the District Forum at Mumbai which also issued summons to the petiioner's Mumbai Office. The Mumbai office also sent summons to the Office at Chennai. However, the summon was issued in Marathi. As per Sec. 28 of CPC, the interstate summon should be issued either in Hindi or in English. The issuance of summon in Marathi itself amounts to denial of natural justice and therefore, on the ground of denial of natural justice, these writ petitions are filed as against the orders of the first respondent Consumer Forum.