Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1441/2013

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lucky Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Gupta

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 1441 of 2013                                                      

Date of institution  :  23.12.2013      

Date of decision    :  22.01.2015

 

National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Batala, Distt  Gurdaspur, through its duly Authorized Officer, Sec-34, Chandigarh.

…….Appellant/Opposite party

Versus

Lucky Kumar S/o Om Parkash R/o Khosla Mohalla, PandhianChowk,Batala, Tehsil Batala , Distt. Gurdaspur.

 

……Respondent/Complainant

First Appeal against the order dated 28.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, 

Quorum:- 

               Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                 Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                       Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

              For the appellant       :         None.

              For the respondent     :        Sh.T.V.S.Lehal, Advocate.

SURINDER PAL KAUR,MEMBER

             This appeal has been preferred  by the appellant/ opposite party  against the order dated 28.10.2013 passed  by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, “District Forum”), Gurdaspur,  vide which the complaint filed by the complainant  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, ( in short "the Act") was partly allowed and direction was issued to the opposite party to pay the sum insured along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of loss of the vehicle till actual realization of the payment . It was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000/-, as litigation cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2.               As per the averments, made in the complaint, Lucky Kumar, complainant, was the owner of the motor cycle CD Delux Hero Honda bearing registration no PB-18L-6735,and he got insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 23.5.2007 to 22.05.2008. On 30.11.2007  he went to attend marriage at B.K. Garden, Kahnuwan Road, Batala, and  parked the above said motor cycle in the premises of that marriage palace on the parking place. At 11.00 P.M., when he came back after attending the marriage, he found that the motor cycle was missing. Despite many efforts made by him, he could not trace the motor cycle. On 08.12.2007 he reported the matter to the police of Civil Lines, Batala, and lodged FIR No. 270 dated 23.11.2007 regarding the theft of the motor cycle. Information was also sent to the opposite party on 12.12.2007 regarding the same. Opposite Party did not decide the insurance claim of the missing motorcycle, despite the repeated requests made by him. The insurance company stated that the claim will be given after the "untraced report" of the police. On 08.08.2012 "untraced report" was issued by the police and the same was handed over to the opposite party. He completed all the formalities and legal notice was also issued on 19.09.2012 through his counsel but all in vain. Ultimately, he filed the complaint before the District Forum for seeking the following directions to the opposite party :-

(i) to pay the insurance amount of the motorcycle to the tune of Rs 33,903/- ;

(ii) to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary harassment, physical pain and mental agony ;

(iii) to pay Rs 5,000/- ,as litigation expenses.

3.               Upon notice, written reply was filed by the opposite party before the District Forum. It pleaded that the complainant has not  furnished all the relevant documents to it. He failed to produce the final case closure report, as accepted by the Judicial Illaqa Magistrate. In the absence of cancellation report of FIR by the competent Judicial Magistrate, it cannot be said that the case under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered with the police has finally been closed being "untraced." In the absence of documents, it was unable to decide the case on merits. There was no negligence on its part. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special cost being pre-mature and without merits.

4.               Both the parties produced evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.               We have heard learned counsel for the respondent/complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant/opposite party. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.

 

6.               It was stated in the grounds of appeal that the Learned District Forum, has failed to appreciate the evidence on the record to the fact that the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and claim of the complainant was rejected on 14.10.2008 itself rightly. Moreover, the complaint was barred by limitation; the same was filed after the expiry of 2 years.

7.               It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence produced by the complainant, it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that the complainant produced on record all relevant documents as desired by the opposite party including "untraceable report." There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned order of the District Forum.

8.               All the averments made in the complaint were duly proved by the complainant by proving on record his affidavit Ex-C1; in which he deposed about each and every fact pleaded in the complaint. He proved on record application dated 08.12.2007 Ex-C6, which was given by him to the police regarding the theft of his motorcycle. He stated in the application that the motorcycle was stolen at night while he had gone on the same to B.K. Garden Kahnuwan Road, Batala, to attend the marriage. As per the police proceeding recorded on that application, police found that some other case  of theft, also committed in the same manner, had already been registered in the police station at FIR no. 270 dated 23.11.2007, and that the offence so disclosed in the application shall be investigated along with the investigation of the other case. The opposite party has closed the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per investigation report of M/S Vigilant Detective Bureau, the theft of this vehicle has not been supported by the police action. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as  under :-  

RE :- THEFT OF YOUR VEHICLE NO. PB-18-L-6735

WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT YOUR ABOVE CLAIM FILE

CLOSED AS NO CLAIM AS INVESTIGATION REPORT OF M/S VIGILANT DETECTIVE BUREAU "THE THEFT OF M/CYCLE OF LUCKY KUMAR IS NOT AT ALL SUPPORTED BY POLICE ACTION AND HENCE CLAIM IN NOT MAINTAINABLE AT ALL HENCE THE FILE IS CLOSED."

The complainant proved on record report of Bakhtawar Singh, SHO, Civil Line Batala, as per that Lucky Sangari, S/o Sh. Om Parkash, resident of Batala had lodged a complaint regarding theft of motorcycle no. PB-18-L-6735. The same was investigated by ASI Jatinder Singh, but the motorcycle had not been recovered whereas, other motorcycles were recovered that was duly informed by the complainant to the opposite party, vide letter Ex-C8. From the evidence, it stands proved on the record that untraceable report of the police was submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. In these circumstances, the opposite party was not justified in closing the claim of the complainant as "No Claim" on the ground that as per investigation report by M/S Vigilant Detective Bureau, the theft of motorcycle was not at all supported by the police action. It was bound to process and settle the claim on the basis of the documents which were necessary for that purpose and which had already been submitted to it by the complainant. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

9.               The appellant/opposite party deposited Rs. 24,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount of Rs 24,500/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after, the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copies to the parties.

10.             The arguments in this case were heard on 24.12.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

 

                                                               (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                                       President

 

 

                                                     (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                                           Member

 

  

                                       (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January     22,  2015                                                                                                                                                  Member              

RK 2