State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 17 April, 2014
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/13/657
Instituted on : 09.12.2013
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Senior Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.02, Second Floor,
Chawla Complex, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road,
Post and District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Jain, S/o Late Bhavan Lal Jain,
Aged about 80 years,
62, Mahalaxmi Market, Pandri,
Post and District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri P.K. Paul, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 17/04/2014 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint No.35/2012 "Äshok Kumar Jain vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited." By the impugned order, learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent /complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.46,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of //2 // payment. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.04-DK-7600 and he obtained a comprehensive insurance policy for the said vehicle from the appellant/O.P. The insurance policy number is 191200/31/10/7136. The amount of premium Rs.863/- was paid by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/O.P. and the insurance policy was effective from 26.02.2010 to 25.02.2011. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.46,000/- On intervening night of 13/14-11-2010, the said vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-DK-7600 was stolen by some unknown miscreant, while the said vehicle was parked by the respondent/complainant in front of shop at Village Dhadhi, District Durg. The respondent/complainant lodged first information report No.108/2010 at Police Station, Dhadhi, where offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against unknown person. The matter was reported to the appellant/O.P. and the respondent/complainant submitted claim before the appellant/O.P. along with relevant documents. Thereafter, the appellant/O.P. demanded khatma report from the //3 // respondent/complainant, then the respondent/complainant sent a letter to the appellant/O.P. for settlement of his claim, but the appellant/O.P. illegally repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant on the ground that the respondent/complainant left the motorcycle unattended in front of the shop without taking proper precautions and the respondent/complainant did not file khatma report before the appellant/O.P. within the stipulated time. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.71,280/-, as mentioned in the complaint by the respondent/complainant.
3. The appellant/O.P. filed its written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The appellant /O.P. pleaded that the respondent/complainant left the motorcycle unattended in front of the shop without taking proper precautions and the respondent/complainant did not file khatma report before the appellant/O.P. within the stipulated time, therefore, the appellant/O.P. repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant and did not commit any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint in part and awarded //4 // compensation in favour of the respondent/complainant, as mentioned in para no.1 of this order.
5. Shri P.K. Pual, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/O.P. argued that the respondent/complainant left the vehicle in front of shop unattended and final report of police was not submitted by the respondent/complainant within stipulated time before the appellant/O.P., therefore, the appellant/O.P. has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant. He further argued that the impugned order passed by learned District Forum is contrary to law and the District Forum committed grave error in ignoring the fact that the respondent/complainant himself is liable for his negligent act and therefore, the order of the District Forum suffered from irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on Keshav Natu Mhatre vs. New India Assurance Company Limited III (2011) CPJ 135 (NC); Om Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited III (2012) CPJ 59 (NC); Manoj Agrawal vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. (Revision Petition No.2292 of 2006 decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 13.11.2006); Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Munnalal Nayak (Appeal No.FA/13/109 decided by this Commission on 28.06.2013).
6. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order. He has drawn //5 // our attention towards copy of the First Information Report and other relevant documents and argued that the respondent/complainant did not left the vehicle in question unattended in front of shop and he parked the vehicle in locked condition in front of shop and learned District Forum has rightly held in the impugned order that the vehicle in question was parked properly and the vehicle was not left unattended by the respondent/complainant, therefore, the appeal of the appellant/O.P. is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
8. In the record of the District Forum, the copy of First Information Report is annexure. According to the FIR, the date of time of the incident of theft of the vehicle was 14.11.2010 at about 10.00 P.M. to 2.00 A.M. and the report was lodged on 14.11.2010 at about 9.30 P.M. at Police Station, Dhadhi, District Durg (C.G.) where First Information No.108/2010 for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against unknown person.
9. We have perused the First Information Report. In the FIR, it is mentioned that "eSa xzke <k<h dk jgus okyk gwWa nqdkunkjh dk dk;Z djrk gwWa fd fnukad 14@11@10 ds 12-00 cts jkf= esjh eksVj lk;dy lqtwdh G.S.S.fd O.R larjk dyj dzekad C.G.04 DK 7600 ftldk baftu //6 // uaEcj G-423101888 psfll uEcj MB-8NG49BB98102238 gSA xkM+h dk isVªksy [kRe gks tkus ds dkj.k ?kj ds lkeus ckgj esa [kM+h dj fn;k Fkk jkf= 12-00 cts xkM+h dks ns[kk rFkk njoktk cUn dj lks x;k jkf= 2-00 cts mBdj ns[kk rks eksVj lk;dy ugh Fkh dksbZ vKkr pksj pksjh dj ys x;k Fkk irk ryk'k fd;k dksbZ irk ugh pyk eksVj lk;dy dher 40000@& :i;s iqjkuh pkyw gkyr esa gS fjiksVZ djrk gwWa fjiksVZ esjs crk;s vuqlkj fy[kh xbZ gS tkap pkgrk gWWwA " In the First Information Report, it is not mentioned that the vehicle was unlocked.
10. In document A-2 which is Police Investigation Report, it is mentioned that "Ikzdj.k eas izkFkhZ Jh nhid dqekj tSu viuh eksVj lk;dy lqtwdh GS-150 R ekMy 2009 dzekad CG 04 DK/7600 dher djhc 40]000@& dks fnukad 14-11-2010 dks jkf+= 12-00 cts vius ?kj ds lkeus [kM+h ns[kk rFkk njoktk can dj lks x;kA blds ckn jkf= 2-00 cts mBk vkSj ns[kk rks lqtwdh eksVj lk;dy ugh Fkh dksbZ vKkr pksj pksjh dj ys x;kA eksVj lk;dy lqtwdh dk batu uacj G423101888 ,oa psfll uEcj MB8NG49AB98102238 gSA izkFkhZ nhid dqekj tSu dh fjiksZV ij dzekad 108@10 /kkjk 379 HkknfHk dk vijk/k iathc} dj foospuk dh xbZA foospuk ds nkSjku vKkr vijk/k ,oa pksjh xbZ eksVj lk;dy dh gj lEHko iz;kl dj ryk'k ,oa irk lkth dh xb] fdUrq irk ugh pyk fudV //7 // Hkfo"; esa irk pyus ls izdj.k [kkRek uacj 0@11 fnukad 27@02@2011 dks [kkRek fd;k x;k gSA "
11. The respondent/complainant specifically pleaded that the matter was reported the appellant/O.P. immediately and Khatma Report was also sent to the appellant/O.P. on 11.0.4011. The appellant/O.P. sent a letter to the respondent/complainant for submitting khatma report on 11.08.2011 i.e. after four months of submission of khatma report.
12. From bare perusal of the document A-2 i.e Police Investigation, which is Police Investigation Report, it appears that khatma report was submitted to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the khatma report was accepted on 27.02.2011 and intimation was sent to the concerned State Bank of India by Police Station, Dhadhi, District Durg.
13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent/complainant had submitted khatma report before the appellant/O.P. when the khatma report was accepted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate.
14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it also appears that the appellant/O.P. could not file any documents, which indicates that the vehicle was left unattended by the respondent/complainant, but on the contrary from documents submitted by the //8 // respondent/complainant, it appears that the vehicle was parked by the respondent/complainant in front of his shop / house.
15. According to the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.46,000/- and the vehicle was parked by the respondent/complainant in front of shop and the vehicle was duly locked by him, therefore, the respondent/complainant is entitled for the amount as mentioned in the insurance policy as Insured Declared Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.46,000/-.
16. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered view that the appellant/O.P. committed deficiency in service by not paying the said Insured Declared Value to the respondent/complainant and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
17. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant/O.P. being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/04/2014 /04/2014