Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Both the Appeal bearing Nos. A/58/2016 and A/226/2016 arise out of the order dated 30-12-2015 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North), passed in CC/220/2011. Accordingly, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.
Case of the Complainant, in short, was that the insured truck got stolen on 13-06-2009 and necessary information was communicated to the local Police Station on 14-06-2009. However, as the said Police Station refused to record an FIR over the said incident, on 20-06-2009 the matter was reported to the SP. After making due endorsement, the SP office forwarded the same to the concerned Police Station, but still then the said Police Station was loath to register any FIR. Finding no other alternative, a Criminal Case was filed before the Ld. 3rd Bench of Lakhimpur Kheri Civil Judge on 30-06-2009. Only after the intervention of said Ld. Court, the local Police Station lodged FIR. However, the concerned IO, allegedly, without proper investigation submitted FRT stating that no such incident took place. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Revision Petition praying for proper investigation of the matter and accordingly, the Ld. Court quashed the said FRT and gave necessary direction for re-investigation of the matter. Meanwhile, the Complainant submitted all the relevant papers to the OP claiming insurance benefit. As the OP Insurance Company repudiated its claim, the complaint case was filed.
In its defence, it was submitted by the OP that during processing of the Complainant’s claim, it received some important documents pertaining to the alleged theft of the insured vehicle, like the FIR, charge-sheet/FRT. It also engaged a Surveyor to investigate the matter. According to the FRT submitted by the IO, no such incident took place at the said place. The investigator also filed a negative report. Considering all the available records, the instant claim was repudiated.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard in the matter and documents on record duly perused.
It appears that, in respect of the alleged incident of theft of the insured vehicle, investigation was caused by Police Authorities twice. The IO concerned though initially filed a negative report in the matter; it appears that the same was quashed by a competent Court of Law against which no appeal was made before the competent Higher Court. Thus, we are not inclined to take any cognizance of the same. In fact, it is quite clear from the conduct of the local Police Station that they were very much hostile towards the Complainant from the very beginning. Otherwise, they would certainly not dither to at least lodge FIR in respect of the alleged incident of theft which compelled the Complainant to run from pillar to post in search of justice.
It appears that though re-investigation was done as per the direction of the Ld. Court, since a prolonged time had elapsed by then, the concerned IO could not make any headway in the matter and submitted FRT u/s 392, IPC.
On going through the survey report we find that the Surveyor pointed out various discrepancies into the statement of the concerned driver and other persons those were quizzed by him regarding the alleged incident. However, what is noteworthy here is that the vehicle was proceeding towards Sahibabad, U.P. from Rampur Tokni, Nepal and the incident alleged to have taken place near Karmail Dhaba in Vill. Rajania, Dist. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P. Accordingly, it can safely be assumed that in course of such journey, the insured truck crossed several check posts, paid statutory taxes. Thus, if the concerned Surveyor had due inclination, it was not at all a difficult task for him to find out if the insured truck indeed proceeded towards UP from Nepal or not. For some obscure reasons, the Surveyor did not bother to look into this finer aspect.
Irrespective of whether the concerned driver hatched a conspiracy or not, fact of the matter remains that the insured truck started from Nepal and got vanished midway. The alleged incident took place in the year 2009 and even after more than 9 years there is no trace of the said truck. What else is required to prove that it was indeed a theft case. May be the concerned IO, who re-investigated the matter could not make much headway to locate the insured vehicle. However, it is noteworthy here that the FRT filed u/s 392, IPC has been accepted by a competent Court of Law.
Accordingly, keeping in mind the preponderance of probability and also the fact that FRT was filed u/s 392, IPC which has been accepted by a competent Court of Law, it appears to us that the Ld. District Forum acted wisely in allowing the instant complaint case though, it is not understood on what basis it awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as against the cost of the truck of Rs. 13,36,650/-.
Considering all aspects, we are inclined to enhance the quantum of compensation as under.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
Appeal Nos. A/58/2016 and A/226/2016 stand dismissed and allowed in part, respectively, on contest against the OP. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the OP shall settle the claim on non-standard basis by paying 75% of the IDV to the Complainant within 40 days from today. Rest of the impugned order shall remain unaltered.
Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of A/58/2016 and a copy thereof in A/226/2016.
