Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1439

RAMAYANPRASAD TIWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM GIC. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 28.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.43/2014 by District Commission, Shahdol)

 

RAMAYAN PRASAD TIWARI.                                                                           …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

CHOLAMANDLAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER.                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI               :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY       :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

27.12.2023

 

            Shri R. K. Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 

            Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shahdol (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.43/2014, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed by the District Commission holding that the opposite party no.1-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

2.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant after availing finance for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- from the

-2-

opposite party no.2 had purchased a truck bearing registration number MP-18 GA-2886 which was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company vide policy number 3379/00937270/000/00 for the period w.e.f. 21.09.2013 to 22.09.2014. It is alleged that on 24.05.2014 his driver locked and parked the vehicle at Bangang Tiraha. Between 11pm of 24.05.2014 and 10am of 25.05.2014, the subject vehicle was stolen of which FIR was lodged in Police Station Sohagpur and informed the insurance company. It is stated that the claim form was submitted and the necessary documents were made available to the surveyor but the opposite party no.1-insurance company vide letter dated 25.09.2014 repudiated the claim.  He argued that the District Commission has further committed grave error in dismissing the complaint.  He therefore prays that the impugned deserves to be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.

4.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company vehemently argued that the complainant failed to file Final Report. In the copy of FIR there is overwriting and the same appears to be suspicious. In the FIR the date of theft is mentioned as 24.05.2014. He argued that the complainant left the vehicle unattended and left key inside the vehicle, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

 

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3/respondent no.2 and 3 financer argued that they are not liable to pay insurance claim on account of theft. The complainant is liable to make repayment of loan obtained as per schedule. He argued that the financer has nothing to do with the insurance claim of the complainant.

6.                Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the record, we find that in the FIR (C-7) there is overwriting on the earlier date 25.05.2014 making it to 24.05.2014 at 20.30 hrs. 25 was striked out and 24 was made in the said FIR. At the back of FIR the date mentioned is 24.05.2014. This clearly creates doubt that the vehicle in fact was stolen on 24.05.2014 at 20.30hrs whereas the complainant in his complaint has stated that the theft took place between 11pm of 24.05.2014 and 10am of 25.05.2014. The complainant has also failed to produce any document that in fact the vehicle was stolen on 25.05.2014 and FIR was lodged on 25.05.2014 but due to clerical error it has been written in the FIR as 24.05.2014. He has also not filed any application written to Police Station Incharge or the Superintendent of the Police to correct the said mistake in the FIR. He has also not submitted copy of FR to the insurance company which is a necessary document for settlement of claim.

7.                In his complaint, he has admitted this fact that his driver left one key in the dash board of the vehicle of which no explanation was given by

-4-

the insurance company. He has also left the vehicle unattended. In overall circumstances more particulary when the FIR appears to be suspicious, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complailnant.

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record and has rightly reached to conclusion that

the opposite party no.1-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service and has committed no error in dismissing the complaint.

9.                Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

10.              In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                      

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

                  Acting President                            Member