State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Jagdish Chander Ahuja vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 10 June, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 113 / 2008
Sh. Jagdish Chander Ahuja S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Ahuja
R/o 17, Race Course, Dehradun
......Appellant / Complainant No. 2
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited
9, Subhash Road, Dehradun
through its Branch Manager
......Respondent No. 1 / Opposite Party
2. M/s R.N. Financiers
14, 1st Floor, New Market
106, Civil Lines, Bareilly
through its Partner Smt. Poonam Agarwal W/o Sh. Rajesh Agarwal
R/o 369, Mirchia Tola, Bareilly
......Respondent No. 2 / Complainant No. 1
Sh. V.K. Vashisht, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 10/06/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing consumer complaint No. 14 of 2001, by observing that the consumer complaint was barred by time and further that it has not been proved that the insured vehicle No. UP-25-5803 had been stolen in the night between 11/12.01.1992 from in front of his house in 17, Race Course, Dehradun. The insurance company was, therefore, not held liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.2
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. At the outset, we may state that there being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The foremost reason for our decision is that the District Forum recorded a reasoned finding that the complainant failed to adduce cogent evidence about theft of his insured vehicle and that the police investigation disclosed that the vehicle had not been stolen and the complainant himself had sold it to one Sh. Naim S/o Sh. Nizam of Meerut city, a junk dealer. After investigation, final report was submitted in the criminal case registered on the report of the complainant and ACJM - I, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 101 of 1992 under Section 379 IPC pertaining to Case Crime No. 17 of 1992 registered against unknown persons on the report of the complainant, accepted the final report vide order dated 24.03.1992 and recommended prosecution of the complainant for committing an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code on account of filing a false report of the theft of the vehicle with the police. On behalf of the complainant, it was submitted that the complainant was acquitted in the proceedings under Section 182 IPC by the 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division / ACJM, Dehradun in Case No. 25 of 1999 and this aspect of the matter indicate that no false report was lodged by the complainant. No doubt the proceedings under Section 182 IPC were dropped by the said order, but perusal of the order indicate that the case terminated in favour of the complainant only on account of the prosecution having failed to produce evidence despite opportunity provided for this purpose. There is no categorical finding in the order that the theft of the vehicle of the complainant had, in fact, taken place and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is of significance that the police had recovered the vehicle in 3 question and after its investigation, gave the vehicle in the custody of Sh. Naim S/o Sh. Nizam of Meerut city, to whom according to the police, the vehicle was sold by the complainant.
4. Further, the document placed on record of the appeal by the complainant himself, would militate against his claim. This document is the xerox copy of the order dated 01.11.1999 passed by Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed by the complainant against the State and Sh. Naim S/o Sh. Nizam, in whose custody the vehicle No. UP-25-5803 had been given by the police and the same was approved under the relevant proceedings by the criminal court. The order passed by the criminal court was, thus, challenged by the complainant and in this petition, the Hon'ble High Court passed the following order:
"Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly learned counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party No. 2 to file counter affidavit in a month.
List thereafter.
In the meantime, Truck No. U.P.-25-5803 shall be given in the interim custody of the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and on furnishing undertaking that he may produce the vehicle as and when it requires by the court."
5. From above, it is obvious that the vehicle No. UP-25-5803 alleged to have been stolen, was given in the custody of Sh. Naim S/o Sh. Nizam by the subordinate criminal courts and the complainant having laid claim for the vehicle, wanted to have the order set aside and in the above-mentioned proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, obtained an interim order, so as to have the said vehicle in his 4 custody, subject to the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court. These facts, thus, would indicate that the vehicle having been recovered, the question of awarding any compensation by the insurance company on the allegations of the complainant that it had been stolen, does not arise. We also can not lose sight of the fact that in the face of the peculiar facts of the case, the District Forum rightly observed that the complainant has failed to prove from the material brought on record that the vehicle had been stolen from his possession. At any rate, the claim preferred was not tenable and the consumer complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum.
6. The District Forum has also taken a view that the consumer complaint was barred by time and even if for arguments sake, we may accept the contention of the complainant that the claim having not been repudiated by the insurance company till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, the consumer complaint was not barred by time, still on account of the aforesaid finding that the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - insurance company.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K