State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Chhote Lal Sahu on 3 May, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/125
Instituted on : 28.04.2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Sr. Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Rama Trade Centre,
1st Floor, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand,
Bilaspur (C.G.) .... Appellant/O.P.
Vs.
Chhotelal Sahu, S/o Mithailal, Aged about 60 years,
Caste : Teli, R/o : Village Padariya,
Presently R/o: Naya Bus Stand, Pendra,
P.S. Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ......Respondent/Complainant
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri Virendra Punjabi, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 03/05/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.140/2015. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
1. The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand), which is claim amount to the complainant // 2 // within one month from the date of order along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.06.2015 till realisation.
2. The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of tractor bearing registration No.C.G.10-DA-1884 which was insured by the O.P. on 20.03.2014. During the subsistence of the insurance, in the night of 21.05.2014, the vehicle was stolen from front of complainant's house near straw/chaff/husk shop (Bhusa dukan.) The report was lodged in Police Station Pendra on 22.05.2014, where offence was registered. The intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the O.P. After investigation, the Police Station Pendra, submitted Khatma. The vehicle in question was insured with the O.P. and the Insured Declared Value was Rs.4,50,000/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get said amount from the O.P., but till date the O.P. did not pay the above amount to the complainant. The complainant has continuously contacted the O.P. and also submitted all relevant documents with application but till date the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question was not paid by the O.P. Due to non-payment of the Insured Declared Value of the tractor, the respondent (complainant) is suffering financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complainant filed // 3 // instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting relief as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the vehicle Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No.C.G.10/D.A.1884 was insured with the O.P. as per terms and conditions of the policy for the period from 23.03.2014 to 22.03.2014 under policy No.193390/31/2014/2334 for only agricultural use. The cost of the vehicle was fixed Rs.4,50,000/-. On receiving intimation regarding theft of the vehicle on 21.05.2014, the O.P. asked the complainant to submit intimation given to R.T.O. regarding theft of vehicle, letter of undertaking, affidavit along with photo submitted before R.T.O., Form No.29, 30 and 35 (certified by the Notary), both the keys of the insured vehicle and Khatma Report obtained from the Court, but till date the complainant did not submit the same, therefore, his claim has not been allowed or disallowed. In the meantime, the complainant filed instant complaint before the District Forum, which is not maintainable because it is pre-mature. The complainant had not made arrangement to keep the tractor in the garage and he negligently parked tractor in side of the road, Pendra which indicates his negligence and is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The complainant himself has not provided the relevant documents to the O.P. which shows his negligence. The complainant has filed the instant complaint to harass the O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
// 4 //
4. The complainant has filed documents. The documents are letter dated 18.02.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P., registered notice date 17.04.2015 sent by Shri Dileep Sahu, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the O.P., insurance policy, First Information Report, Final Report.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is insurance policy, Annexure NA-2 is letter dated 18.03.2015 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure NA-3 is letter dated 13.12.2015 sent by the O.P. to the complainant.
6. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay the amounts to the complainant, as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
7. Shri Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the insurance policy was issued for only agricultural purpose. The respondent (complainant) gave intimation regarding theft of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.), but the respondent (complainant) did not provide the documents, which were asked for by the appellant (O.P.). The respondent (complainant) did not submit Khatma Prativedan till date to the appellant (O.P.), therefore, his claim is still pending before the appellant (O.P.), hence, the claim is pre-mature. It is essential to direct the respondent (complainant) to file documents asked for by the appellant (O.P.). The vehicle was left unattended by the respondent (complainant), // 5 // therefore, he violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, he is not entitled to get any amount under the insurance policy, from the appellant (O.P.). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
8. Shri Virdendra Punjabi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order and has argued that the matter was immediately reported to the concerned Police Station and intimation was given to the appellant (O.P.). Except, Khatma Prativedan, all relevant documents were provided to the appellant (O.P.), even then the appellant (O.P.) did not settle the claim of the respondent (complainant), which comes within purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
10. It is admitted that the respondent (complainant) is registered owner of tractor bearing registration No.C.G.10-DA-1884 and the same was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 23.03.2014 to 22.03.2015. The tractor was stolen on 21.05.2014 in the night of 21.05.2014 and the matter was reported to Police Station, Pendra, District Bilaspur // 6 // (C.G.), where offence No.111/2014 for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered on 22.05.2014.
11. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that intimation regarding theft of the tractor was given to the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) pleaded in para 2 of its written statement that on receiving intimation regarding theft of the tractor on 21.05.2014, the appellant (O.P.) asked the respondent (complainant) to submit intimation given to R.T.O. regarding theft of the tractor, letter of undertaking, affidavit along with photo submitted before R.T.O., Form No.29, 30 and 35 (certified by the Notary), both the keys of the insured vehicle and Khatma Report obtained from Court, but the respondent (complainant) did not submit the same to the appellant (O.P.).
12. Looking to the above averments made by the appellant (O.P.), it appears that the respondent (complainant) gave intimation regarding theft of the tractor to the appellant (O.P.) immediately.
13. According to the appellant (O.P.), the respondent (complainant) did not provide required documents. Annexure NA-2 & Annexure NA-3 are letters dated 18.03.2015 and 13.12.2015 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant) whereby the appellant (O.P.) asked the respondent (complainant) to give information regarding theft of the vehicle and to submit documents i.e. intimation given to R.T.O. regarding theft of vehicle, letter of undertaking, Khatma Prativedan, Claim Form, affidavit // 7 // along with photo submitted before R.T.O., Form No.28, 29, 30 and 35 (certified by the Notary). The respondent (complainant) sent letter to the appellant (O.P.) relating to Claim No.15/030045 in which it is mentioned that "I Chhotelal Sahu S/o Mithailal Sahu is submitting following documents, in compliance of order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur :-
(1) Letter of Undertaking in the stamp of Rs.100/-, in original. (2) Subrogation Forum, in stamp of Rs.100/- Notarised, in original. (3) Receipt obtained in respect of the intimation given to the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in respect of theft of the vehicle, postal receipt etc. (4) Certified Original of Form No.28, 29, 30 & 35 (5) Original Sale Deed certified by the Notary. (6) Certified copy of Khatma Report and copy of First Information Report.
(7) Original of Registration Certificate of the vehicle. (8) Both the keys of the tractor bearing registration No.C.G.10/D.A.1884.
(9) Original of the N.O.C. of the vehicle.
(10) Photocopy of the policy."
14. We have perused the order sheets of the District Forum. The
District Forum vide order dated 06.10.2016 directed the respondent (complainant) to provide relevant documents to the appellant (O.P.). In // 8 // remarks column of the order sheet it is mentioned that "leLr nLrkost ewy ,oa pkch izkIr 27.10.2016 (Received all documents in original along with key) on 27.10.2016)". It appears that the respondent (complainant) had submitted documents in original along with Key of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.), even then the appellant (O.P.) did not settle the claim of the respondent (complainant). According to the respondent (complainant) except Khatma Prativedan, all documents were given by him to the appellant (O.P.). It is not essential for settling the claim of the respondent (complainant) that the respondent (complainant) is required to submit Khatma Prativedan before the appellant (O.P.) along with other documents.
So far as Khatma Prativedan is concerned, the Police investigates the matter and if the vehicle which was stolen and the offender are not traced out, then the Police submits Final Report before concerned Judicial Magistrate, who accepts or refuses the final report submitted by the Police and it takes a lot of time. The respondent (complainant) could not wait for an indefinite period for settlement of his claim, therefore, it is not proper for the appellant (O.P.) to repudiated his claim on the ground of non-submission of Khatma Prativedan.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the vehicle was left unattended by the respondent (complainant). The above contention of the appellant (O.P.), is not acceptable. The respondent (complainant) specifically pleaded that the vehicle was parked in front of // 9 // his house near straw/chaff/husk shop (Bhusa dukan). In the First Information Report, it is specifically mentioned that the generally vehicle was parked being parked in front of house of the owner of the vehicle. The appellant (O.P.) did not file any document or evidence to prove that the vehicle was left unattended by the respondent (complainant) without locking the vehicle, therefore, merely the vehicle was parked in front of the house of the respondent (complainant), it cannot be held that the respondent (complainant) left the vehicle unattended. The vehicle of the respondent (complainant) was stolen and all relevant documents were given by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.) for settlement of his claim, therefore, the respondent (complainant), is entitled to get compensation from the appellant (O.P.).
16. The appellant (O.P.) has filed document Annexure NA-1 which is Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule in which Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is mentioned Rs.4,50,000/-. The said vehicle was stolen, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled for getting the above amount from the appellant (O.P.).
17. So far as the award of interest is concerned, the learned District Forum has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.4,50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.06.2015 till realisation. The District Forum has rightly awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.4,50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.06.2015 till realisation and has also rightly awarded // 10 // Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
18. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity and illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
19. 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) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
03/05/2017 03 /05/2017 03 /05/2017