Haryana

StateCommission

A/1330/2018

BINDU - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SURINDER KUMAR DAARIA

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Date of Institution: 27.11.2018

                                                         Date of Final Hearing: 30.04.2024

                                                     Date of Pronouncement: 22.08.2024

 

First Appeal No.1330 of 2018

 

Bindu S/o Sh. Dharamvir, R/o Tikli, Tehsil and District:Gurgaon.                                                                                              .....Appellant

•  

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. G.T. Road, Opp. Bus Stand- Karnal through D.M. Gurgaon D.O.

CORAM:             Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

                             Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member

 

Argued by:-       Mr. S.K. Daaria, counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Alankrit Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          As per office report; there is delay of 953 days in filing of this appeal.  Separate application for seeking its condonation has been filed by appellant/complainant, which is accompanied by affidavit.  Notice of this application was also issued to respondent/insurer vide order dated 10.01.2019, while issuing notice in main appeal.  This application remained uncontested as no reply thereto has been filed by insurer/respondent.  Therefore, delay in filing of this appeal stands condoned, as cause projected in application and accompanying affidavit, constitutes ‘sufficient cause’.

2.      Challenge in this appeal has been invited to order dated 11.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 155 of 2010 titled as ‘Bindu Vs. Oriental Insurance Company ltd’. by Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-Gurgaon (District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon) vide which complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.    

 3.     Factual matrix: Complainant has filed complaint with regard to theft of Bolero Jeep No. HR 55 H-6216 by alleging that on the day of theft (21.03.2009) this vehicle was insured with OP-insurer vide insurance cover note No. 005383 valid from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009.  It is pleaded that FIR No. 72 dated 22.03.2009, U/s 379 IPC was registered with regard to theft and OP/insurer was also intimated about it who registered his theft claim.  Untraced report was issued by competent Court.  He issued legal notice.  He prayed that OP/insurer be directed to reimburse claim with interest and he be also granted compensation along with litigation expenses.

4.      OP/insurer resisted the complaint, by pleading that: there has been no intimation from owner of vehicle No. HR 55 H-6216 and owner of this vehicle have also not submitted any papers to it.  It is further pleaded that this vehicle was not insured with OP/insurer from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009. 

5.      Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon through impugned order dated 11.03.2016 has dismissed the complaint thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.    

6.      This appeal came up for hearing today before this Commission.  Learned counsel appearing for parties to this lis have been heard.  Complainant’s counsel has urged that: actually complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No. HR 55 H-8216 (Bolero Jeep) was stolen on 21.03.2009 and FIR No. 72 was registered on 22.03.2009 qua this vehicle.  Claim was also filed insurer/respondent with regard to theft of vehicle No.HR 55 H-8216 (Bolero Jeep).  Legal notice served upon insurer/respondent also specifies the number of stolen vehicle as being No.HR 55 H-8216 (Bolero Jeep).  Due to inadvertence and because of unintentional typographical error; while filing Consumer Complaint before Learned District Consumer Commission; registration number of stolen vehicle was wrongly mentioned as HR 55 H-6216 instead of HR 55 H-8216.  Eventually, in impugned order dated 11.03.2016; Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon has dealt the complaint concerning vehicle No.HR 55 H-6216 instead of dealing qua vehicle No.HR 55 H-8216.  It is urged that stand of insurer/respondent was, of course right keeping in view the quality of text of complainant’s complaint in which number of stolen vehicle has been erroneously mentioned as HR 55 H-6216.  It is further urged that in actual reality; the stolen vehicle (Bolero Jeep) was having registration No. as HR 55 H-8216 for which complainant submitted theft claim to insurer.   

7.      Learned counsel for insurer has urged that despite the insurer’s stand in reply was correct in the wake of facts pleaded in complaint regarding number of subject vehicle, yet, insurer would apprise the Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon about status and admissibility of complainant’s claim regarding theft of vehicle No. HR 55 H-8216 by submitting reply and leading evidence, in case the matter is remanded back for its fresh adjudication.  

8.      In light of above rival submissions put across to this Commission; it is of firm opinion that genesis of matter in question revolves around number of vehicle (HR 55 H-8216-Bolero Jeep) allegedly stolen on 21.03.2009 and insured with respondent vide cover note No. 005383 from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009, for which, complainant as per his stance had already lodged theft claim with insurer, registered as such by insurer with No. 2613007/31/2009/000500.  Insurer would solicit status of this theft claim of complainant and apprise about the same to Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon. Accordingly, to secure the ends of justice; order dated 11.03.20216, passed by Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon in complaint No. 155 of 2010 titled as “Bindu Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby set aside and the original complaint is revived for its fresh adjudication.  In this process; the complainant would at first, amend his complaint qua correct registration number of vehicle only which is HR 55 H-8216-Bolero Jeep by moving appropriate application before Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon. Learned counsel appearing for insurer has, with generosity, stated that insurer would not oppose this application for amendment, but it would file its reply to the amended complaint qua status of complainant’s theft claim with regard to vehicle HR 55 H-8216-Bolero Jeep.

9.      Thereafter, Learned District consumer Commission-Gurgaon would grant two (2) effective opportunities only, each to complainant as well as to insurer, to lead their respective evidence and then proceed ahead to dispose of the complaint, freshly as per law, as expeditiously as possible.  Complainant is burdened with cost amount of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited by him with District Legal Service Authority-Gurgaon and receipt in this regard would be placed before Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon.  Parties, either self or through their respective authorized representative would appear before Learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon on 25.09.2024.  With above observation; this appeal is allowed.       

10.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

                                    

Date of pronouncement: 22^nd August, 2024

 

 

 

                             S.C. Kaushik                         Naresh Katyal                                          Member                                 Judicial Member

Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench