STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2016
(Against judgment and order dated 04-11-2015 in Complaint Case
No. 88/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office, 2nd Floor, 4 Marry Gold
Shah Najaf Road, Sapru Marg, Lucknow
Through its Assistant Manager (Legal)
...Appellant
Vs.
Pravindra Kumar Misra
S/o Sri Doodh Nath Misra
Village & Post Auraila,
(Ram Dayal Ganj)
P.S. Madyahu, District Jaunpur.
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Ravi Dwivedi, Advocate.
Dated : 31-10-2017
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT(ORAL)
This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 04-11-2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur in Complaint No. 88 of 2012 Pravindra Kumar Mishra V/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and ordered opposite party to pay Rs.12,82,500/- to the complainant within one month. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that in case said amount is not paid within stipulated period, interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment till date of payment shall also be paid on the above amount.
Feeling aggrieved with judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party of complaint has filed this appeal.
Learned Counsel Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra appeared for appellant.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Dwivedi appeared for respondent.
:2:
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum against appellant/opposite party wherein it has been stated that the complainant is owner of truck bearing registration No. UP 62T-5322 which was insured by opposite party Insurance Company. It has been further stated that during validity period of insurance policy his truck was stolen while it was parked near Bhalsabba Red Light in Delhi at 2.30 a.m. and the driver and helper were taking tea.
It has been alleged by complainant in complaint that the driver and helper chased miscreants to recover truck but they could not succeed and the miscreants fled away with the truck. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged in local police station, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and complainant preferred claim before opposite party.
In compalaint it has been stated by complainant that the complainant made all efforts to get his claim from opposite party but failed to get his claim. Consequently he has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum.
Before District Consumer the opposite party Insurance Company has filed written statement wherein it has been stated that opposite party Insurance Company has not been intimated about the incident of theft by complainant.
It has been further stated by opposite party that no claim has been preferred by complainant before opposite party for the vehicle in question.
After having considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned judgment and order wherein the District Consumer Forum has mentioned that the opposite party has repudiated claim of complainant merely on the ground that he has produced only one key of the vehicle. In impugned judgment the District Consumer Forum has further mentioned that one key of the vehicle which was furnished by complainant to Insurance Company has
:3:
been produced by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company/opposite party before District Consumer Forum and the other key of the vehicle has been produced by financier. As such the ground for repudiation of claim by Insurance Company is not justified. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed above order for payment of insured amount of vehicle in question.
During course of hearing of appeal learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent/complainant has not surrendered R.C. and other papers of vehicle and has failed to complete necessary formalities. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not correct.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is correct. He further assured that respondent/complainant shall complete all necessary formalities required by the Insurance Company.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Admittedly the respondent/complainant is the owner of vehicle in question and his vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. The factum of incident of theft of vehicle has not been denied by the appellant/Insurance Company. In letter dated 23-12-2011 the appellant/Insurance Compay has requested complainant to submit second key of vehicle in question and has further requested to explain inconsistency appearing in survey report about manner of incident. As mentioned above second key of vehicle has been produced before District Consumer Forum by financier and there is no inconsistency in F.I.R. and complaint regarding manner of incident. The police has investigated the offence but the vehicle in question could not be recovered. There is nothing on record to show that in police investigation the genuineness of incident of theft of vehicle has been suspected.
In view of above considering all facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground
:4:
to repudicate claim of complainant. As such the District Consumer Forum has rightly allowed complaint and passed impugned judgment and order for payment of insured amount as mentioned above. Surrender of R.C. and other documents of vehicle as well as other formalities required by Insurance Company should be done by respondent/complainant before District Consumer Forum to get release of insured amount.
In view of above appeal is disposed of finally with direction to the respondent/complainant to surrender R.C. and to complete formalities required by appellant/Insurance Company before District Consumer Forum in accordance with law. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum shall be executed by District Consumer Forum subject to above condition.
In appeal both parties shall bear their own costs.
Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant/Insurance Company under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum for disposal in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
