Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.33 of 2020

Ram Prasad s/o Sjhri Goti Ram, R/o Village,

Punch, District, Jhansi.                                     ….Appellant.

Versus

1- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

    Co. Ltd., Nandanpura, Shivpuri Road,

    Jhansi.

2- Micro Prabhari, United India Insurance

    Co. Ltd., Main Road, Near Bajaj Auto, 

    Moth, Jhansi.                                              ….Respondents.

Present:-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.

Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate for appellant.

Sri Anchal Mishra, Advocate for respondent.

Date   30.8.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President: Heard Sri Alok Sinha, ld. counsel for appellant and Sri Anchal Mishra, ld. counsel for respondent/insurance company.

The facts revealed that the vehicle namely Mahindra Bulero was stolen on 9.6.2016 which was insured for a sum of Rs.5,53,000.00. Delayed FIR has been lodged by the complainant. There is no discussion nor counsel for the respective parties have informed the court that what is the date of information of the theft of vehicle provided by the complainant to the insurance company. The ld. District Consumer Commission while deciding and rejecting the complaint has recorded the following findings:

“उपरोक्त विवेचना से स्पष्ट है, कि परिवादी का क्लेम विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक अस्वीकृत नहीं किया गया है, जिसकी जांच विचाराधीन है। जैसा कि परिवादी द्वारा अपने परिवादपत्र के पैरा-13 में स्वयं कथित किया है, जिसे विपक्षी द्वारा भी अपने प्रतिवादपत्र में कथित किया गया है, तथा परिवादी द्वारा लिखायी गयी प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के बाद आरोप पत्र या अंतिम आख्या प्रस्तुत हुयी, इसका भी कोई साक्ष्य या कथन परिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। ऐसी स्थिति में मंचासीन पीठ की राय में परिवादी का क्लेम अनमेच्योर्ड होने के कारण जिला फोरम में संधार्य न होने की वजह से विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध कोई भी विधि विरूद्ध आदेश पारित करना न्यायसंगत प्रतीत नहीं होता है। तदनुसार परिवादी का क्लेम अभी तक विचाराधीन होने से अनमेच्योर्ड होने के कारण परिवाद खारिज होने योग्य है।”

The aforesaid finding reveals that when the complaint was rejected, the complainant has not provided the relevant material fact with regard to lodging of FIR. The investigation carried out by the IO as well as the process applied by the insurance company.

Since the aforesaid investigation is necessary to be looked into by the ld. District Consumer Commission which in instant case, has not been provided by either of the parties, hence, in my opinion the ld. District Consumer Commission requires rehearing of the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded. The complaint is directed to be restored to its original number and heard by the ld. District Consumer Commission before whom the respective parties will provide all the necessary material as desired by the ld. District Consumer Commission. The ld. District Consumer Commission will decide the complaint expeditiously, as early as possible.   

  The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

Certified copy of this order be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                                           (Justice Ashok Kumar)                                                    

                                                      President

Jafri PA-I

Court-1