State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insuarance Company Ltd. vs Mohd. Aslam Anr Another on 17 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 13 / 2014
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Branch Office, Sethi Motors Works Building
Ramnagar Road, Kashipur
District Udhamsingh Nagar through
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, 1st Floor, 4-B, Sachdeva Colony
Opposite Nainital Bank Limited, Haridwar Road
Dehradun through its Divisional Manager
...... Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
1. Sh. Mohd. Aslam S/o Sh. Mohd. Saddeeq
2. Sh. Mohd. Shahid S/o Sh. Mohd. Saddeeq
Both R/o Mohalla Jatwara, Tehsil Jaspur
District Udhamsingh Nagar
...... Respondents / Complainants
Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 17/05/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 106 of 2012; Sh. Mohd. Aslam and another Vs. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to decide the claim of respondents -2
complainants within a period of one month and then to pay the claim amount to them. The respondents were directed to submit the copy of driving licence with the appellant within a period of 10 days'. The appellant was also directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents towards litigation expenses.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the Eicher Canter bearing registration No. UA07-C-9446 of the respondents - complainants was insured with the appellant - insurance company for the period from 27.10.2010 to 26.10.2011 at an IDV of Rs. 1,90,000/-. During the night intervening 24/25.08.2011, the said Canter (insured vehicle) was stolen from Old Anaj Mandi, Kashipur, regarding which F.I.R. at case crime No. 371/2011 was lodged on 25.08.2011 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 04.06.2012, the complainants received a letter from the insurance company and the documents sought for in the said letter, were duly submitted by the complainants with the insurance company on 09.08.2012 and required formalities for settlement of the claim were completed. However, the claim was not settled by the insurance company. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 09.10.2021 to the insurance company, but no heed was paid by the insurance company. Thereafter, a consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that the documents sought for from the complainants were not submitted by them within the stipulated time. Copy of Final Report as well as charge-sheet was called for, but the same were not submitted by the complainants. The investigator submitted the copy of Final Report on 29.11.2011, which was submitted by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") to the effect that on investigation, it was not found that the insured vehicle 3 was stolen from the alleged place of occurrence on the above-mentioned date. Since the insured vehicle was not found to be stolen and hence as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim is not payable. The investigator - Sh. Chandrapal Singh Tomer submitted his report dated 03.01.2012 and since the factum of theft of insured vehicle is not proved and hence the claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been allowed by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2013, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the instant matter was investigated by the I.O. on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant No. 1. The I.O. found that the vehicle in question (Canter) was not stolen from the alleged place of occurrence, as stated by the complainants. Hence, the claim of the complainants was not payable by the insurance company. The impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission suffers from legal infirmity. Hence the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission should be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents - complainants submitted that the matter was investigated by the I.O. and Final Report was submitted by him, but on the basis of protest application submitted by the complainants, the Final Report was set aside and 4 matter was re-investigated by the 2nd I.O. and after recording the statement of the witnesses, the 2nd I.O. has found that the vehicle in question was stolen. His further submission is that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is reasonable and speaking one. The appeal has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant for the period from 27.10.2010 to 26.10.2011. It is also admitted fact that the claim was submitted by the complainants before the insurance company for payment of the claim amount, stating therein that the vehicle in question was stolen from the place of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R., which was not paid by the insurance company. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the vehicle in question was stolen from the place of occurrence, as alleged by the complainants or not.
9. We find from the record that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant No. 1 regarding theft of the insured vehicle under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the matter was investigated by the police. After investigation, the I.O. submitted Final Report No. 91/2011, recording finding to the effect that he visited the place of occurrence along with complainant No. 1 and after inquiry from the witnesses, it was not found that the subject vehicle was actually stolen from the alleged place of occurrence. Further, we find from the record that the aforesaid Final Report was challenged by the complainants and the same was set aside by the competent court and direction was given for re-investigation of the matter. The subsequent I.O. investigated the matter and he submitted the Final Report with findings that after recording the statement of witnesses, it was found that the occurrence had taken place, but the stolen property (insured vehicle) could not be recovered and the accused (thieve) also could 5 not be caught / traced. This Final Report submitted by the subsequent I.O. has been accepted by the competent court. It is not borne out from the record that the aforesaid Final Report submitted by subsequent I.O. was challenged by the insurance company before the competent court. Thus, it is proved on the basis of the evidence available on record that the vehicle in question was stolen from the place of occurrence and non-settlement of the complainant's claim by the insurance company on the basis of the Final Report submitted by the 1st I.O., can not be said to be justified at all, when the aforesaid Final Report was set aside by the court and the matter was re-investigated and subsequent I.O. has found that the vehicle in question was stolen from the alleged place of occurrence.
10. The District Commission has directed the complainants to submit copy of driving licence with the appellant within a period of 10 days' from the date of impugned judgment and order and it has further been directed that the appellant shall decide the claim within a period of one month from the date of impugned judgment and order. We do not find any perversity in the findings so recorded by learned District Commission.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality, warranting any interference by this Commission. The appeal is liable to be dismissed, being bereft of any merit.
12. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K