STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 20 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 16.01.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 04.04.2012 |
Jarnail Singh s/o Sh. Sri Ram, # 807, Sector 48-, Chandigarh. ……Appellant V e r s u s National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ....Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh.Krishan Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant got his scooter bearing Regd.No.CH01 P 7315, insured with the Opposite Party (now respondent). During the currency of the insurance policy, the scooter aforesaid of the complainant, was stolen from outside Gurudwara, Phase VIII, Mohali, on 20.9.2010. The complainant searched his scooter, but he could not trace it for two hours, and, thereafter, he reported its theft to the nearby Police Station. The report submitted by the complainant, to the Police Station, was merged in FIR No.51 dated 15.6.2010. On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., the complainant submitted the same to the Opposite Party. The complainant received a letter dated 05.05.2011, from the Opposite Party i.e. Motor Claim Hub, Regd. Office-1, SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, mentioning therein, that it could not entertain the claim, as he (complainant) had violated condition No.1 of the Motor two wheelers package policy. Resultantly, the claim submitted by the complainant, was repudiated by the Opposite Party. The complainant again requested the Opposite Party, to consider his claim, sympathetically. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the scooter bearing Regd.No.CH01 P 7315, was insured with it. It was also admitted that the theft took place, during the currency of the insurance policy. It was stated that though, the scooter was stolen on 20.09.2010, yet, the complainant sent information of theft, to the Opposite Party on 21.3.2011, i.e. after 180 days, approximately, of the incident. It was further stated that since, the complainant did not inform the Opposite Party immediately with regard to the theft of the scooter, after the incident, he had violated condition No.1 of Motor two wheelers package policy. It was further stated that, on account of undue delay, in intimating the loss of the scooter, the Opposite Party, was deprived of its valuable right to investigate the matter properly, so as to trace the same (scooter). It was further stated that, as such, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 5.5.2011. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice,. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening paragraph of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The claim of the complainant was repudiated, on the ground, that he violated condition number 1 of the insurance policy (Motor two wheelers package policy), by not intimating, the Opposite Party of the incident of theft, immediately, after the same had taken place, but, on the other hand, information with regard to the said incident was given after 180 days. It may be stated here, that, in the written version, submitted by the Opposite Party, in paragraph number 2, on merits, it was in clear-cut terms, stated by the Opposite Party that Annexure R-1, copy of the certificate of policy alongwith the terms and conditions, and Annexure R-2, copy of the repudiation letter dated 05.05.2011 were attached. Not only this, even Sudhir Kr. Goyal, Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company, Sector 17, Chandigarh, who filed his affidavit, by way of evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Party, in clear-cut terms, in paragraph number 2, on merits of the same, stated that a copy of the certificate of policy alongwith terms and conditions thereof as Annexure R-1, whereas, copy of the letter of repudiation dated 05.05.2011 as Annexure R-2, were attached. In para number 7 of the impugned order, the District Forum, reproduced the relevant part of condition number 1 of the policy. However, both these documents (Annexures R-1 and R-2), are not in existence, on the District Forum file. An opportunity was granted, to the concerned Officials of the District Forum, to trace these documents, but they failed to trace the same. The concerned Officials of the District Forum, thus, certainly misplaced these documents. In the absence of document R-1, copy of the Insurance policy alongwith the terms and conditions thereof, this Commission cannot decide the controversy, involved in the appeal, effectively and completely. From Annexure R-1, the material document referred to above, this Commission could ascertain, as to the real purport of condition number 1. It could only after going through condition number 1 of the policy, that this Commission could decide, as to whether, the same was, in any way, violated or not, and, if so, what was the effect thereof. In these circumstances, no alternative is left with this Commission, than to set aside the order of the District Forum, and remand the complaint back to it, for fresh decision, after reconstructing the documents Annexures R-1 and R-2, which were misplaced. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction, to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, after reconstructing the documents Annexures R-1 and R-2. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 19.04.2012 at 10.30 a.m., sharp. 11. The District Forum record be sent back, immediately, alongwith a certified copy of this order, so as to reach there, well before the date fixed. 12. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. 04.04.2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
