Karnataka

StateCommission

A/3/2022

Sanju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.B. Halli

20 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 3/2022

 

Sanju S/o. UmaluChavan R/o. Jalageri Tq. & Dist. Vijayapur   (By Sri. S.B.Halli)	……Appellant
The Regional Manager Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, EPIP, Sitapur, Industrial Area Jaipur, Rajastan 302 022   The Branch Manager Shriram Generl Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Shubhashree Hotel Solapur Road, Vijaypur	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY MR.K.B.SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by complainant aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.90/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayapura.

2. Commission examined the impugned order and heard Learned Counsel for appellant / complainant.
3. The appellant / complainant raised consumer complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 on 10.11.2021 before the District Commission, which came to be dismissed, passing impugned order, wherein held reasons assigned by the complainant in the affidavit are not acceptable to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  Inthis regard, it would be appropriate to examine as to the antecedents of the case raised by the complainant.According to the complainant he is the owner of the tipper lorry bearing No. KA 37/6123 and KA 43/2222, which were covered with policy for the period commencing from 22.07.2013 to 21.07.2014 and 30.10.2013 to 12.10.2014 respectively.  These two tipper lorries were used by the complainant for road construction works of Kusunal village to Siraguppi village on contract basis from KNNL Division from HarugeriNo.3 and after completion of each day work complainant used to park vehicles near bridge 500 mts. away from Kusunal village where the works were going on.  In such circumstances, on 01.07.2014 when vehicles were parked in the said place in the evening hours were not found when he returned on 02.07.2014 and to that effect he lodged complaint with jurisdiction police on 13.07.2014.  Accordingly, Dharwad Police Station registered FIR No.142/2014 and referred to Kagwad police station for investigation.
4. Learned Counsel submits that in between 02.07.2014 to 13.07.2014 complainant made effects to search the vehicles by enquiring neighboring land farmers and at last lodged compliant on 13.07.2014.  The investigation initiated pursuant to FIR No.142/2014 came to be concluded by submitting C final report on 17.06.2016.  If this has to be acceptable at the stage of admission of complaint, as C final report would give a meaning that vehicles are not traced.  It is not that police have submitted B report.  Filing of B final report does mean false case, but, submission of C final report does mean not traced.  In such circumstances, when the OPs failed to reply the legal notice dated 23.11.2017 and 03.08.2018 respectively as submitted by complainant are tobe considered as un-rebutted document as they are or even without hearing the OP.  In other words,  Forum below could have admitted the complaint  condoning the delay for the reasons sworn in by the complainant in the enclosed IA keeping in mind the object of consumer laws, to settle the consumer disputes, since, it is not disclosed whether OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant or not.  Further, Forum below could have liberally construed to condone the delay in the matter of consumer dispute keeping in mind the object of the Act, followed by Section 69 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. In view of such conclusion, we proceed to hold that the impugned order passed by the District Commission requires reconsideration is liable to be set aside with direction to admit complaint condoning the delay and issue notice to OP Nos. 1 & 2 in order to decide the matter on merits as early as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/-

Judicial Member

Sd/-

Member