JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.10.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant(now appellant). 2. The Complainant, being owner of Scorpio bearing Regn. No. PB-65E-1875 got insured the same with OP No.1, which was stolen on 8.10.2007. Due information of theft was given to the Police, as also to the OP Insurance Company. FIR No. 357, dated 1.11.2007 was registered. When the vehicle could not be traced, the police issued an untraced certificate, intimation whereof was also given to OP No.1. It was stated that despite completing all the formalities, OP NO.1 did not process the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 4.7.2009 Annexure C-5 was issued to the OP Insurance Company, but there was no response. It was further stated that the OP Insurance Company was, thus, deficient in rendering service to the complainant, and indulged into unfair trade practice. 3. In reply, OP-I/ Insurance Company admitted the factual matrix regarding insurance of the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant. It was also admitted that when the vehicle was stolen on 8.10.2007, intimation of the same was given to OP No.1 on 5.11.2007, by the complainant. It was also admitted that an FIR was lodged, though, after a delay of 23 days. It was further stated that on receipt of the intimation of theft, a letter dated 16.5.2008 was written to the Complainant requesting for submission of documents and completion of the formalities. It was further started on receipt of the legal notice, sent by the complainant, through his Counsel Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, he was informed that the vehicle in question, had been recovered by the Police, and he was requested to ask his client to contact the Police Authorities. It was further stated that when the vehicle, in question, which was insured with the OP, and stolen , had been recovered, the OP was not liable to pay any compensation. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service ,on the part of OP Insurance Company, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. Vide order dated 10.12.2009, on the basis of an application moved by the appellant, the Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, as well as the SSP, SAS Nagar,Mohali were impleaded as parties. In reply by the DSP, South Division, U.T.Chandigarh, it was stated that in pursuance of the request of Inderpal Gupta, investigator of the Insurance Company, on the basis of the information found available, on the website of NCRB, the vehicle was shown to have been recovered and accordingly the vehicle enquiry report was supplied to him. It was further stated that the reports of theft and recovery of the vehicle were sent by the concerned Police Stations to the National Crime Research Bureau, New Delhi, in the ordinary course, with the purpose of maintaining upto date database status of such vehicles on the NCRB website. It was further stated that after receipt of the notice of Appeal, from this Commission, it was revealed from the report of the MHC, PS Kharar dated 30.10.2009, that the vehicle, in question, had not yet been recovered. Thereafter, this fact was brought to the notice of Dr.Pawan Bhardwaj, an officer of the NCRB during his inspection visit to the Police Headquarters, U.T.Chandigarh on 29/30-12-2009, who advised to inform the NCRB for rectification of the status of the vehicle on the website. Accordingly, letter dated 30.12.2009, was written for rectification of the information. 5. In reply, filed by Raj Balwinder Singh Marar, DSP, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, it was stated that the vehicle of Harbhajan Singh, complainant i.e. Jeep Make Mahindra Scorpio, bearing registration NO.PB-65-E-1875, Chassis No.MAITB2B8L62G81951, Engine NO. B564G52955 which was stolen on 8.10.2007, had not been traced in FIR No.357 dated 1.11.2007 U/S 379IPC by P.S.Kharar, Distt. Mohali. 6. The parties led evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the record, which was available, on the file, at the relevant time, and when the SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the S.P., U.T.Chandigarh had not been made parties, the District Forum relying upon the report of the NCRB, submitted by the Police, came to the conclusion that since the stolen vehicle had been recovered, there was no deficiency in service, on the part of the OP Insurance Company, and consequently it dismissed the complaint. . 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case ,carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that from the affidavits of D.S.P. South, Chandigarh and DSP, Kharar, which were submitted, during the course of Appeal, after the S.P, Chandigarh and the SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali, were made parties to the same, it was clear that the vehicle of the complainant which was stolen, was never recovered, but earlier, wrong information to the surveyor of the Insurance Company, on the basis of wrong data, fed on the website of the NCRB regarding the recovery of the vehicle, was supplied. He further submitted that since the vehicle had not yet been recovered, the OP Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of the Insurance claim. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, submitted that the SSP, SAS Nagar, and the SP, U.T.Chandigarh, were only made parties during the course of Appeal. He further submitted that they were neither made parties in the complaint, nor their version, in the shape of replies, was obtained therein. He further submitted that the case be remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction that both of them be impleaded as parties, in the complaint and after obtaining their replies and evidence, the complaint be decided afresh. He further submitted that in that event, the respondent/OP will also be afforded an opportunity to rebut the evidence regarding the non-recovery of vehicle. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves to be remanded, for fresh decision, in accordance with law. The Consumer Foras are required to resort to the principles of natural justice. Once, the SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the S.P, U.T. Chandigarh were made parties, in the appeal, by the Commission, it was required of it to remand the case, with a direction to the District Forum to implead them as parties, in the complaint too, and after seeking their replies and evidence, if any, and after affording an opportunity, to the OP Insurance Company to rebut the same, decide the case afresh. Mere filing of the affidavits by the DSP, South, Chandigarh and the DSP, Kharar, could not be considered to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Once the earlier report, submitted by the U.T. Police, to the effect, that the vehicle had been recovered, was contradicted by Officers of the rank of DSP, U.T. Chandigarh and the DSP, Kharar, the authenticity of the version set up by them in their affidavits was also required to be verified. 13. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded to District Forum-I with a direction to implead the SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali and the SP, Chandigarh, as parties in the complaint, and thereafter, they be afforded an opportunity to file replies and the evidence, if any and decide the case afresh after hearing the parties, in accordance with law within three months from 12.5.2011. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum-I, on 12.5.2011. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to the record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
