State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Rajendra Singh S/O Ganpat Singh on 13 July, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 984/2016 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 6th floor, Maan Upasana, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur. Vs. Rajendra Singh s/o Ganpat Singh r/o Ram Nagar Colony, Ghanra Ghar Road, Dholpur Tehsil & Distt. Dholpur. Date of Order 13.7. 2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed counsel for the appellant Mr.Sumit Jain counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Dholpur dated 8.6.2016 whereby the claim has 2 been allowed against the appellant.
The contention of the appellant is that vehicle was stolen on 25.8.2010 but the insurance company was informed after 125 days and First Information Report has also been lodged with delay hence, claim is not payable.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that on the next day i.e. 26.8.2010 the information was sent by UPC. He went to lodge the First Information Report but it was not accepted. On 28.8.2010 he lodged criminal complaint before the competent court hence, there is no delay the intimation and the claim has rightly been allowed.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was stolen on 25.8.2010. Letter addressing the intimation of the theft was sent by UPC and photo copy of the receipt of the UPC has also been submitted.
The contention of the appellant is that receipt is forged 3 one but nothing of this nature has been pleaded in the written reply to the complaint and further when post office has affixed the seal, there is no reason to treat the UPC receipt to be forged one and reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4927/2012 United India Insurance Co. Vs. Gopal Krishan Sharma where the National Commission has held as under:
" This letter was sent through UPC copy whereof is Anx.C3. The stamp of the post office affixed on the photocopy of the UPC receipt bears the date 10.8.2009. The UPC receipt was issued by the officials of the Post office, in due discharge of their official duties. The official acts done by the public servants in the due discharge of their official duties, carry a presumption of correctness, until proved to the contrary."
Hence, in view of the above there is no reason to accept the contention of the appellant that UPC receipt is forged one.
In view of the above the respondent has intimated the insurance company on the very next day of the loss. Photo copy of the FIR has also been placed on record which having the narration that he went to lodge the complaint at Police Station Kotwali but it was not accepted and thereafter on 28.8.2010 a criminal complaint has been filed before the 4 competent court. In the above facts the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
The appellant has relied upon 2012 (2) CPJ 189 Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ifco Tokio General Insurance, 2014 (II) CPJ 18 Kamaljit Kaur Vs. United India Insurance Co., 2013 (2) UAD 654 Tata AIG Vs. Nasir Ahmed, 2013 (1) CPJ 10 Deen Dayal Vs. National Insurance Co., 2016 (2) CPJ 13 Jignesh Natwarsingh Vs. ICICI Lombard GIC, 2013 (3) CPJ 497 Lakhan Pal Vs. United India Insurance Co., 2016 (2) CPR 897 Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Shankar Singh, 2015 (1) CPJ 172 New India Assurance Co. Vs. Radhey Shyam and 2012 (4) CPJ 441 New India Assurance Co. Vs. Trilochan Jane where the insurance company was informed with delay which is not the case here.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.
(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm