State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain on 29 June, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 115/2016
Date of Presentation: 25.04.2016
Date of Decision: 29.06.2016
.....................................................................................
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Dev Paul Chowk, Hamirpur, H.P.,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, Block No.7,
SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain,
Village and Post Office Nadaun,
District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh,
Through its partner Ramesh Kumar Jain,
Ward No.4, Nadaun, Tehsil Nadaun,
District Hamirpur, H.P.
...Respondent
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 09.03.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, camp at Hamirpur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent, M/s Manohar Lal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain (F.A. No.115/2016) Ramesh Kumar Jain, has been allowed and a direction given to it to pay a sum of `1,42,500/-, on account of insurance money, `10,000/-, on account of compensation and `5,000/-, on account of costs.
2. Respondent, M/s Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellant alleging that they had insured their truck, bearing registration HP-55-4767, with the appellant, in the sum of `1,50,000/-, for the period from 21.09.2011 to 20.09.2012 and that on 29.06.2012, when the policy was in force, truck was stolen in the night, from the front side of his house, where it had been parked, by the driver. It was stated that intimation of theft was given to the appellant, but it repudiated the claim on the ground that this was a case of criminal breach of trust, inasmuch as the First Information Report had been lodged, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the respondent sought directions to the appellant to pay insurance money, as also compensation & litigation expenses.
3. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that the truck had not been stolen, but was misappropriated, because case had been 2 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain (F.A. No.115/2016) registered, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Also, it was stated that the documents and the ignition key of truck had been left inside the truck, by the driver, which fact made the version of the respondent suspicious.
4. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant, as aforesaid.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the ignition key and the documents of truck had been left in the truck, by the driver engaged by the respondent. Rather this fact is stated by the respondent himself in the report, which he lodged with the police, as is made out from Annexure C-13, copy of First Information Report, as also para-3 of the complaint. Now if, the documents and the ignition key had been left inside the truck, this amounts to breach of condition No.5 of the general conditions, which requires the insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss or damage. Copy of terms & conditions of the policy has been produced before us by the counsel for the appellant, which we have marked as Annexure CX. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Manohar Lal Ramesh Kumar Jain (F.A. No.115/2016)
7. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and the complaint, filed by the respondent, is dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member June 29, 2016.
GAURAV) 4