ORDER

(Passed on 31 / 07 /2018)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against repudiation of insurance claim in respect of theft of truck and claiming insurance amount of Rs.3,48,974/- with interest @9% p.a. and  and further claiming compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of proceeding Rs.10,000/-.  

2. The facts in short giving rise to this petition are that the complainant’s husband Firoz Khan had owned a truck Model No.Tata 2515 bearing No.MH 34, M-2431 and insured with OP No.2 vide policy No.0014400002/4/03/287682 against premium of Rs.25,333/-  for the period 28/1/2014 to 27/1/2015. The truck was purchased on 19/1/2014  and was being used for earning of livelihood of family. The present complaint is filed by brother in law of complainant as the complainant is a Pardanashin Muslim women.

3. On 8/1/2015, the truck was parked outside the Ballarpur paper Mill near gate No.7, after unloading material of Bambu for paper mill.  When the conductor of the truck went to take back the truck, surprisingly there was no truck. The husband of the complainant searched for the truck as per advise of the police, but could not find out. Hence after two days, FIR came to be registered U/s 379 of IPC on 10/1/2015 against unknown person. The intimation of the theft was given to the insurance company on 10/7/2015 by registered letter. At the time of theft, the husband of the complainant was driving another truck for earning his livelihood, but unfortunately, some unknown persons with an intention to commit robbery of the material being carried in the truck, killed the husband of the complainant and thrown his body under bridge out of which an offence U/s 302, 201 came to be registered vide Trial No.130/15 at Talegaon Police Station, District Amravati.  The police seized the Soyabean which was loaded in the truck and arrested the accused.  But before the death of complainant complainant’s husband had filed Insurance Claim with relevant documents for the theft of his truck bearing No.MH 34, M 2431.  After the death of complainant’s husband, the complainant has supplied the relevant documents as per demand of the Opposite Party. After the receipt of final report from JMFC, Ballarpur on 16/2/2016, the copy of “A” final report has been supplied to the insurance company. Even after supplying  all the relevant documents, the OP could not adjudicate the insurance claim but closed the file for want of documents. The act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

4.       The complaint is admitted and notice was served on the OP. The OP  filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against it and submitted that the OP has no branch office at Chandrapur. The policy came to be issued by OP No.2 at Nagpur Office, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore the Fourm has no jurisdiction. So also the complainant engaged in two trucks to earn his livelihood, therefore, the purpose is commercial purpose. The complainant, after several requests, was unable to file mandatory documents to adjudicate the claim as per letter dated 10/7/2015 and, therefore, for non submission of requisite documents, the claim is closed. The complainant parked the vehicle negligently without care and caution. The complainant filed the FIR after delay of 2 days in respect of theft of his vehicle. Due to non submission of requisite documents and corrospondance , the Calcutta Office of OP No.2 has closed the insurance claim and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

5.        Counsel for the complainant argued that the OP has admitted the insurance policy and the insured amount of Rs.3,48,974/- and that the insurance claim was initially filed by husband of the complainant who has died due to murder by unknown person in an attempt of robbery.  After receipt of final A report from Judicial Magistrate, Ballarpur, the same was submitted to the OP but the OP has arbitrarily closed the file for want of documents. The complainant has supplied the necessary documents as and when demanded by the OP. The keys and the original RC were submitted with OP. The delay in FIR is unintentional. Therefore, the closure of her claim amounts to deficiency in service and hence the petition may be allowed as prayed. 

6.         Counsel for the OPs argued that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP No.2 has no branch office at Chandrapur. The OP No.2 had issued notice to the complainant for supply of mandatory documents by letter dated 10/7/2015, but the same were not supplied. Therefore the claim is closed. Hence there is no deficiency in service.  

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?                                      Yes

2.  Whether  the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the

      complaint ?                                                                                               Yes            

3.  Whether the OP Nos.1 & 2 have committed deficiency

     In service. ?                                                                                               No

4.   What order ?                                                                 As per final order..

As to issue No.1

7.      The husband of complainant has purchased two trucks for earning livelihood of his family by engaging himself and a driver. Therefore, in those days of inflation, to maintain the minimum standard of living, income from two trucks might mitigate the expenses. Therefore, the purpose could not be commercial purpose. Therefore the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) and the services as promised are the services within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of CP act. and hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to issue No.2

8.      The vehicle of the complainant was registered within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the incidence of theft has occurred within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to issue No.3

9.      The incidence of theft  occurred at Ballarshah, Distt. Chandrapur on 8/1/2015 and the FIR was registered on 10/1/2015. So there is no inordinate delay and the delay is sufficiently explained by the complainant by giving reasons. The complainant failed to submit original RC book, registration book and two sets of keys as per letter issued by OP No.2. The complainant submitted a final A report of theft from JMFC, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur on 16/2/2016 but the file has already been closed on 10/7/2015 for want of mandatory documents. The complainant could not establish by cogent, proper and reliable evidence the reason for non submission of original RC book, registration book and two sets of keys as per letter issued by OP No.2. The complainant filed a paper to prove that he has submitted documents and keys to the OP but that document does not bear the seal and signature of OP. Therefore, the document filed on record can not be a genuine and reliable document. The complainant failed to submit proper evidence to establish submission of mandatory documents with OPs as per letter dated 10/7/2015. Therefore, for non submission of mandatory documents for the theft, the insurance claim of the complainant came to be closed and the same does not amount to deficiency in service. Therefore the petition is dismissed without cost as per final order..

                                            Final order
1. The Complaint is dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHANDRAPUR