National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ashok Kumar Mishra vs Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... on 17 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ86(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 28.3.2003 of the Bihar State Commission in complaint No. 28/1998. The brief facts of the case are :
The appellant/original complainant Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra is the owner of a Jeep No. BR-05-9005 which had a valid insurance from the opposite party, New India Assurance Co. It is the case of the complainant that on 9.2.1996 the driver, one Raju Prasad, took the vehicle for hire but the driver as well as the Khalasy, Manoj Kumar Tiwari absconded along with the vehicle. The Insurance Company was informed of these facts on 16.2.1996, on 23.2.1996 F.I.R. No. 16/1996 was lodged at the concerned police station. The police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 406/379, I.P.C. on 20.11.996 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari.
2. A Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party to confirm the theft. It is the case of the complainant that the Surveyor had been asking for irrelevant information like licence of the driver and office from which the licence was obtained which according to him are irrelevant in a theft case. As Insurance Company has not decided the claim the complainant approached the State Commission.
3. The State Commission dismissed the case holding that the complaint is not maintainable. They held that while the complainant claims that the driver and Khalasy ran away with the vehicle the Khalasy's father filed a counter criminal case against the complainant alleging that the complainant and his driver kidnapped his son (Khalasy). Both the driver and the Khalsay are not traceable. A process under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr. P.C. was issued to seize the properties of the absconding driver and the Khalsay. The Insurance Company also took the plea before the State Commission that they have not rejected the insurance claim and that they only demanded the proper information like the driving licence of the complainant's driver and they would decide the matter after the relevant information is furnished. In view of the claim of theft and counter claim of kidnapping, the State Commission held that fact of theft has not been established and that the application is not maintainable.
4. Before us it has been argued on behalf of the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra that the counter criminal charge of kidnapping filed against them has been dismissed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Motihari on 4.10.2002 and that the process under Section 83, Cr.P.C. issued against the parents of the driver and the Khalasy has been upheld by the Fifth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari vide his order dated 1st July, 2002.
5. In our considered view, while the above facts are correct, the argument of the Insurance Company that they have not rejected the claim, that they are still waiting for the relevant information from the complainant so that they could decide the matter is very valid. We, therefore, see no merit in interfering with the order of the State Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.