State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pawan Kumar Sharma vs N I Co. on 7 October, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2007/1906 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. Pawan Kumar Sharma a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. N I Co. a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.1906 of 2007 Pawan Kumar Sharma ..Appellant. Versus 1- National Insurance Company Ltd., Region no.17, 12 Samudaik Kendra, Ist & IInd Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 through Regional Manager. 2- Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Farrukhabad. 3- Prabhu Electronics, Naya Kotha Parcha, Nehru Road, Farrukhabad. .....Respondents. Present:- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. For Appellant : None. For Respondents : None. Date 30.11.2015 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- The appeal is pending for admission since 2007. It was taken up for hearing on 7.10.2015 for admission. None responded on that date also. There was no application either. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, it was taken up for disposal on merit on the basis of evidence available on record.
It may be observed here that in view of ruling laid down by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Revision No.4434 of 2014, Court No.4 was allowed to preside over by a Single Member on 7.10.2015. Hence, this judgment.
(2)From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma purchased one Nokia Mobile Handset: 3315 bearing no.351465607229770 on 29.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.3,950.00 from M/s Prabhu Electronics, Nehru Road, Farrukhabad. The mobile set contained battery no.067038463563346581. After purchasing the mobile set, he installed SIM card no.40078155 in it. The mobile set was lost in transit while he was on his way from Farrukhabad to Fatehgarh on 12.2.2004 and an intimation to this effect was given to the Police at Kotwali Farrukhabad on 14.2.2004. It has further been submitted in the complaint that after purchasing the mobile set, he got the same insured with the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. The loss took place during the validity period of the insurance and, therefore, he filed a claim for indemnifying the same. The claim was, however, repudiated on ground that the intimation by the police was not brought under any crime number and the matter was not even investigated by it. The respondent National Insurance Company also took the plea that the complaint was filed on frivolous ground. The Company does not insure mobile sets directly. The same is done through the HCL and the appellant/complainant made agreement with the H.C.L. and not with the National Insurance Company therefore, the complaint should have been filed against the HCL. It further took plea that the intimation, given to the police showed that the mobile set was pick-pocketed by (3) somebody which is a penal offence and, therefore, it was not possible for the Company to deal with the matter of payment in the absence of FIR. Aggrieved by this repudiation, the appellant/complainant filed consumer case no.313 of 2005 for redressal of his grievances. The Forum below took all facts, circumstances and evidence on record and held that repudiation was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The mobile set was pick-pocketed when the respondent/complainant was on his way from Farrukhabad to Fatehgarh by Taxi on 12.2.2004 but the intimation was given to the police on 14.2.2004. The delay in giving the intimation to the police has not been explained. The insurance was made through the HCL but the same was not made a party. The Insurance Company acted within the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part in the matter in hand. The Forum below considered various other discrepancies and dismissed the complaint on merit. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and therefore, no interference in it is required. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
ORDER The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.
(A.K. Bose) Presiding Member Jafri PA-II Court No.4 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER