Haryana

StateCommission

A/453/2014

UIIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

Simran Jeet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.453 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 04.06.2014

Date of Decision: 01.12.2016

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kaithal through its Branch Manager, through authorized signatory of Chandigarh Regional office, Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager S.C.O.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Simranjeet Singh S/o Sh.Shishan Singh Shah, R/o # 1047, Sector-19 (II), HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Dinesh Morya, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          As per complainant, he purchased a car and got insured the same with the opposite party (O.P./appellant).  On 09.07.2010 his car was badly damaged in an accident. FIR No.197 dated 09.07.2010 was lodged at Police station (P.S.) Pehowa for the offence punishable under section 279/304 A of Indian Penal code, 1860 (In shot “IPC”). He spent Rs.1,69,406/- on the repairs and claim was submitted, but, the same was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that he had already sold this vehicle to one Davinder Pal Singh S/o Sube Singh, whereas he was owner of the same.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that actually he sold this vehicle to Davinder Pal Singh and also handed over possession on the basis of agreement to sell.  After sale he was not having insurable interest in the vehicle. Objections about maintainability, suppressing material facts, mis-joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Dipsutes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (in Short “District Forum”) accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.05.2014 and directed as under:-

“We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,21,389.75 paise as assessed by the surveyor, subject to the condition of submitting the “N.O.C. or “Indemnity Bond” by the subsequent purchaser namely Devinder Singh S/o Sube Singh, r/I House NO.66, Sector-8, HUDA, Karnal.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.       Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.       During the course of arguments it has come to our notice that parties did not produce any evidence before the District Forum. Reference of which has been given in the impugned order. On 26.04.2011 the complaint was adjourned  for evidence, if any, and arguments, but, lateron no evidence was recorded on behalf of the parties and  straightway the case was  adjourned for arguments.  Orders dated  26.04.2011 and  10.08.2011 are reproduced as under:-

     “Present:-       Sh.Raj Raman Dixit Adv. for comp.

                              Sh. N.S.Berwal, Adv. for Ops.

 Power of attorney and reply on behalf of O.Ps. filed.  Now to come upon 10.08.2011 for evidence if any and arguments.

                                      Sd/- Member                          Sd/- Member

                                                                                      26.04.2011

         

     Present:-        Sh.Raj Raman Dixit, Adv. for  comp.

                             Sh.N.S.Berwal,Adv. for Ops.

Arguments not ready. Date is requested. Granted.  Now to come upon 24.11.2011 for arguments.

                                      Sd/- Member                          Sd/- Member

                                                                                      10.08.2011”

 

From the bare perusal of orders, the complaint was adjourned time and again for arguments only and not the evidence. When complainant did not produce any evidence, there was no opportunity for the  opposite party to produce any evidence in rebutal.  In these circumstances, impugned order dated 05.05.2014 is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the District Forum to afford an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter decide the matter afresh.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the district forum, Kaithal on 13.01.2017.

8.       The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

 

December 01st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.