State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U I I Co vs Lotu Yadav on 11 May, 2017
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/2012/1447 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. U I I Co a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Lotu Yadav a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 11 May 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Appeal No. 1447 of 2012 UnitedIndia Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Lotu Yadav ...Respondent Present:- Hon'ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri Alok Kumar Singh for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
Date: 06 .07-2017 Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand,Member-This Appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Office, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow, against the order dated 23.05.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi, in complaint case No 111/2010, Lotu Yadav vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Briefly the facts in this matter are that the complainant-respondent got an insurance policy from the Appellant- Insurance Company for his Messey Fargusan Tractor No. UP-61F-9726 on dated 4.4.2007. Its policy no. was 082702147107196100000006. The insured value of this tractor was Rs.370,000/- . This tractor was stolen by the unknown persons in the early hours of dated 13.4.2007 i.e. about 5.30 am. According to the contents of the FIR it was stolen when the driver parked the tractor outside the house of his relative Kallan in Village Patna-Gopalpur. When he returned after 2 hour, the tractor was missing. The Complainant tried to lodge FIR with the police station. The police did not register the FIR. It could be registered only dated 3.6.2007after the court order under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police filed FR in this case and the court accepted the FR on 25.2.2008. The Complainant informed the insurance company on dated 25.8.2008 that two robbers abducted the driver along with his grandson and took away the engine leaving behind the tractor trolley. Later they dropped the driver and the grandson in the lonely place. They snatched the mobile phone of the grandson. The FIR could be registered under court orders. The Complainant filed the claim of tractor theft with the insurance company. The appellant insurance company repudiated the claim. Being aggrieved with the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company, the Complainant filed the complaint case before the District Consumer Forum Varanasi. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-
" परिवादी लौटू यादव का परिवाद स्वीकार किया जाता है कि ओरिएंटल इंश्योरेंस कं0लि0 को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह एक माह के अन्दर मु0 रू0 ३७००००/- (तीन लाख सत्तर हजार) अदा करें। उपरोक्त समयावधि में धन न देने पर परिवाद प्रस्तुतीकरण की तिथि से संतुष्टि की तिथि तक ०७ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज भी देय होगा। यदि एक माह में धन अदा कर देते हैं तो ब्याज धन से मुक्त रहेंगे। "
उपरोक्त के अतिरिक्त परिवादी विपक्षी से मानसिक शारीरिक आर्थिक क्षति के रूप में मु0 रू0 ५०००/- (पांच हजार) एवं वाद व्यय के रूप में मु0 रू0 १०००/- (एक हजार) भी विपक्षी से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी रहेगा। '' Being aggrieved with the impugned order this appeal has been filed. The appellant have taken the ground that the FIR of the tractor's theft has been filed on dated 3.6.2007 while it was stolen on 13.4.2007. The information of the theft to the insurance company has been given after a period of 1year 4 months on dated 12.8.2008. The delay in filing FIR and informing the insurer has not been explained . This is the breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The learned District Forum have committed manifest error in passing the impugned error by ignoring the facts and the position of law. The Appellant pleaded for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the Appeal. The respondent did not turn up despite notices sent to him. The service of the notice to the Respondent was deemed sufficient vide order dated 8.11.2016.
On the date of hearing the Appeal, the learned counsel of the Appellant was present. None was present for the respondent. We perused the record on file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the Appellant. Firstly, we find the contradiction in the Complainant's statement in FIR and in the statement of information to the insurance company. In the FIR he has stated that the tractor was stolen when it was parked outside the house of a relative and the driver had gone to meet him while in the statement before the investigator of the insurance company Mr B.N Chobe, he has stated that two robbers abducted the driver along with the complainant's grandson and took away the engine. The Driver and the complainant's grandson were later dropped in lonely place. These two differing statements makes the story of theft suspicious and unreliable. The information to Insurance company was sent at the delay of about one year and 4 months. The FIR has also been lodged at the delay of 2 months though it was registered after the court orders under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel of the complainant referred to the case (Appeal No 321 of 2005) decided by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission. In this matter New India Assurance Company Limited vs Trilochan Jane (Appeal No 321 of 2005) Hon'ble National Commission in its order dated 9.12.2009 has held that the delay in informing the insurance company and lodging FIR can be fatal to the investigation and the insurance company as the stolen car could travel a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and the scrap sold to the scrap dealer. The learned district forum ignored these major facts while passing the impugned order. The use of tractor for commercial purpose could have been ignored while deciding the claim in the matter of theft of the tractor. But in the instant case the story of theft is unreliable. In view of the above discussion we find that the learned District Forum have erred in allowing the complaint case. In the light of above discussions and observations the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Order The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Parties will bear their own costs. Hence No order to the costs.
(Raj Kamal Gupta ) (Mahesh Chand) Presiding Member Member S.k. st. c-५ [HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand] MEMBER