National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Balbir Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 15 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 44 OF 2013 (From the order dated 10.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 876/2012 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Balbir Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh R/o Nawan Naushehra Tehsil and District Gurdaspur (Punjab) ... Petitioner Versus 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office (261603), G.T. Road, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur Punjab Through its Manager 2. The State Bank of India, Branch Office Pandhori, Mahantan 03931, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur Punjab Through its Branch Manager . Respondent(s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Lekh Raj Rehalia, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 15th FEB. 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 876 / 2012 vide which the order dated 26.04.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, was upheld and the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was ordered to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant Balbir Singh filed a complaint against respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others therein that his tractor bearing registration no. PB-54-C-8026, which was insured with the respondent / opposite party no. 1 was stolen during the currency of the insurance policy. The petitioner / complainant made a report to this effect to the Police Authorities as well as got the matter published in newspaper on 4.4.2011. The required documents were also supplied to the insurance company but they refused to make him payment of the insurance claim. The District Forum found discrepancies in the version of the complainant saying that the claim was shrouded in suspicious circumstances and the complainant had failed to explain the reasons for delay in filing the complaint. The complaint was ordered to be dismissed by the District Forum. The State Commission in the appeal order also observed that the factum of theft having taken place had not been established. The report of the investigator as well as the Police also proved that the complaint was false. The State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum in the appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.
4. He has drawn our attention to some order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class) saying that it was clear from this order that the tractor was not traceable till date despite best efforts. The State Commission and the District Forum had failed to carry out the correct appreciation of the facts of the case. Further, the petition was very much within limitation from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. The statement of the Station House Officer (SHO) of the area had also not been considered while passing the impugned order. The petition should, therefore, be accepted and the orders of the State Commission as well as that of the District Forum should be set aside.
5. We have examined the material on record and have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
6. It has been stated in the reply filed by respondent no. 1 before the District Forum that theft of the said tractor is stated to have taken place on 30.03.2010 but the Daily Diary Report (DDR) was recorded on 12.05.2010 with the local police. Such an occurrence should have been reported immediately to the local police. The Insurance Company was also given intimation after delay of more than 7 days.
On enquiry, the local police found that the theft had never taken place. The investigator appointed by respondent no. 1, S.A. Investigating and Consultant Agency found after investigation that the alleged theft never took place. The petitioner is also stated to have left the keys inside the vehicle and hence, found negligent. Both the District Forum and State Commission have reached the conclusion that the alleged theft never taken place. In view of these facts, we do not find any merit in the petition.
7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/