NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/988/2010

IFFCO -TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULSHAN SHARMA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. S.M. TRIPATHI

03 Jan 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 988 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 06/01/2010 in Appeal No. 185/2009 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
1. IFFCO -TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
1st, 2nd Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Shashtri Nagar, Near Railway Crossing
Ludhiana
(Punjab)
2. THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C-1, Distt. Centre Saket
New Delhi
Delhi
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. GULSHAN SHARMA & ANR.
R/o. VPO Damtal, Tehsil Indora
Kangra
Himachal Pradesh
2. THE RICHARD STRAUSS INSURANCE BROKING P. LTD.
SCO No. 11, 2nd Floor, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road
Jalandhar
(Punjab)
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. S.M. TRIPATHI
For the Respondent :
Mr. Vishal Chadha, ADv.

Dated : 03 Jan 2011
ORDER

Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent got his truck insured from the petitioner.  The policy was for the period w.e.f. 22.11.2006 to 21.11.2007.  The vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 10/11.5.2007. 

-2-

Respondent informed the petitioner, but instead of several requests made petitioner failed to settle the claim, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          Since the petitioner insurance company inspite of service did not appear, District Forum ordered ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner.  Taking the facts stated in the complaint, which were duly supported by an affidavit in evidence by the respondent, to be correct, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.12,25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days after the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation for mental pain, agony and inconvenience.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.  It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been served before the District Forum.  The State Commission did not

-3-

accept the contention raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  The District Forum had sent registered acknowledgement due notice to the petitioner.  As the notice was not received back served or otherwise, the presumption was raised that the petitioner had been duly served.  Petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that it had not been served.  Since the facts stated in the complaint remained unrebutted, the District Forum had rightly assumed the facts stated in the complaint, which were duly supported by an affidavit, to be correct.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the fora below.  Dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.