JOGINDER KAUR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") moved by the petitioner -plaintiff for return of plaint, has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner through her attorney Harjit Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,58,574/ - against National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ludhiana as well as Regd. Office 3, Kolkata. The petitioner had got insured an Eicher Canter No. 2002 bearing registration No. HR -37A -4101 with respondent No. 3 vide policy No. 150100/31/04/6312236 processed by Basukinath Consumer Pvt. Limited. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2009 regarding which case FIR No. 20 dated 11.02.2005 under Sections 279/304 -A IPC was registered at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat. The claim was submitted with the Insurance Company at Ludhiana and the respondents appointed Surveyor for examination of the vehicle. The said vehicle was examined within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana, however, the claim was not settled. The vehicle is still standing with Uttam Sales and Services, Ludhiana since 20.02.2005. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed joint written statement by taking one of the preliminary objections that Civil Court at Ludhiana has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The claim was lodged with respondent No. 3 and the same was also repudiated by respondent No. 3. It was further averred that Civil Court at Kolkata has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. When the fact of having jurisdiction to try and decide the suit by the Court at Banashal, Kolkata came to the knowledge, the petitioner -plaintiff moved application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.09.2013. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.