| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 259 of 7.7.2017 Decided on: 12.2.2021 Darshna Devi w/o Sh.Sudesh Kumar, Nabha Colony, Malkana Patti, Samana, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - The New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at Divisional Office I, 7 Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, Punjab, through its Manager/Authorized Officer/Authorized Signatory.
- Registered & Head Office, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its office at New India Assurance Building,87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai, 400001.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Preet Mohinder,counsel for complainant. Sh.B.S.Sodhi, counsel for OPs No.1&2. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Darshna Devi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
FACTS OF THE CASE - Briefly the case of the complainant is that she purchased an household insurance policy bearing No.36140048130500000042 dated 11.7.2013 valid for the period 11.7.2013 to 10.7.2014 from OP No.1 for the insurance of articles lying in the house situated at Nabha Colony, Malkana Patti, Samana, registered in the name of the complainant and paid Rs.3385/- as premium and had also given detail of the articles of the house lying in the said house alongwith golden articles of about 90 grams.
- It is averred that on 17.10.2013 some persons forcibly entered in the said house and committed theft of golden articles of 70 grams regarding which FIR No.154 dated 17.10.2013 U/s 458, 380,323,148,149 IPC with Police Station City Samana was got registered against the accused persons namely Satnam Singh s/o Sucha Singh, Sher Singh S/o Satnam Singh, Maghar Singh, Surjit Kumar and Jarnail Singh, who broke the locks of the house and forcibly entered into the house and the incident captured in the CCTV footage. Information to the OPs was also given in this regard on the next date through phone.
- The complainant visited the OP No.1 time and again but OP No.1 till date has not given any response of her insurance claim.The complainant also got sent a legal notice upon the OPs but to no effect.
- It is further averred that the complainant earlier filed a complaint No.CC/164/2016 before this Hon’ble Forum which was decided on 26.4.2016 with the direction to the OP to settle her claim with regard to the policy in question within 30 days. The complainant was also granted liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action in case of dissatisfaction by the decision of the OPs.
- It is further averred that vide letter dated 23.1.2015, the OPs repudiated the claim in a biased and unconstitutional manner.
- Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to make the payment of insured value of gold articles of 70 grams alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f.17.10.2013 till realization; to pay Rs.25000 towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
Written Statement/Reply to the complaint - Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is premature and that the complaint is not maintainable
- On merits, insurance of the household articles is admitted having attached copy of policy. It is submitted that as per investigation report and other documents on record of OP, there was a dispute regarding property between complainant and her husband with some other persons. It is further submitted that investigation was got conducted vide report dated 22.8.2014 of Sh.Rajan Bhatia,Advocate, who held that it is a false case as the insured is not living in the said house and as such the competent authority after going through the report and other documents repudiated the claim on 23.1.2015 and the complainant was duly intimated in this regard. The claim has been rightly repudiated by the OPs.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.G.P.S.Gill, Deputy Manager of OPs, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Rajan Bhatia, Advocate / Investigator alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
Arguments and Findings. - The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant took insurance policy from the OP and she got insured the household articles. The ld. counsel further argued that policy was valid from 11.7.2013 to 10.7.2014 and the complainant had paid the total premium of Rs.3385/-.The ld. counsel further argued that on 17.10.2013 some persons forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and committed theft of gold and FIR No.154 dated 17.10.2013 under Sections 458,380, 323, 148 and 149 IPC with P.S.City, Samana was registered. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant made request to the OP no.1 to pay the compensation on account of theft of gold but they have not paid any claim. So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that this complaint is false and frivolous as there is no evidence on the file that theft of gold articles took place as alleged. The ld. counsel further argued that the basic document is FIR but in the FIR there is no mention of theft of the gold. The ld. counsel further argued that already all the accused have been acquitted by the Ld.Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana.The ld. counsel further argued that the claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant has failed to prove the theft of gold articles.
- To prove this case, complainant has tendered her affidavit, Ex.CA and she has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the insurance policy where no doubt risk of jewellary was also covered and jewellary was insured for Rs.2,25,000/- , Ex.C2 is the insurance policy. Ex.C3 is the FIR which is the basis of the case and FIR Number is 154 dated 17.10.2013.By going through the entire version of the complainant in the FIR there is no where mentioned that gold articles were also stolen from the house of the complainant. Had the gold been stolen then the complainant would have mentioned the same in the FIR. It is worth mentioning here that all the accused mentioned in the FIR were acquitted by the Ld. JMIC, Samana on 16.5.2019 and the judgment is on the file. In para No.11 of the judgment, it is mentioned by Ld.JMIC,Samana that PW1 Dr.Rahul Singla, PW2 Darshana Devi, PW3 Mohit Kumar and PW4 HC Kuljit Singh have not deposed regarding alleged theft committed by the persons in the house. As such it was held by Ld.JMIC that offence of 380 read with 149 IPC is not proved.
- So there is clear findings of Ld.JMIC that it was not proved by Darshana Devi and others that theft had ever taken place and as already discussed above theft is also not proved in the FIR,Ex.C3.So from both these documents on the file, it is not proved that theft of gold articles has taken place.Exs.C5 and C6 are the representations sent by the complainant to the OPs regarding the theft and in that it is not mentioned that they have lodged the FIR, as already discussed that there is no mention of theft in the FIR.Ex.C7 is the legal notice,Ex.C9 is the repudiation letter.It is mentioned in this letter that as per the investigation by the OPs no theft has ever taken place of the gold articles.Ex.C10 is the order of the Consumer Forum dated 9.4.2017.
- On behalf of OPs Sh.G.P.S.Walia Deputy Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written version, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Rajan Bhatia, Investigator, Ex.OP2 is the repudiation letter,Ex.OP3 is the investigation report of Rajan Bhatia. It is mentioned in the investigation report that as per the document footage of CCTV no theft has been taken place on 17.10.2013 at 8.30PM as alleged by the complainant. It is also mentioned in the investigation report that Darshana Devi is not residing in the above stated address and the house has been given to a tenant. So from the findings of the investigator, it is clear that no theft has been taken place.
- So due to our aforesaid detailed discussion, there is no mention of theft committed of gold articles in the FIR, all the accused were acquitted by the Ld. JMIC vide judgment dated 16.5.2019 and in that judgment as already stated above, it is mentioned in para No.11 that Darshana Devi, Mohit Kumar and Sudesh Kumar has not deposed that alleged theft took place by accused persons in their house.
- So due to our discussion, totally a false complaint has been filed by the complainant. So the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:12.2.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
