State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Shri Robin K. Rodrigues, on 11 February, 2010
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISION, PANAJI GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia. . . Presiding Member. Smt. Caroline Collasso . . . Member. Appeal No . 65 of 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Branch Office Above Dena Bank, Opp. Hotel Bardez, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. Appellant (Original Opposite Party) v/s Shri Robin K. Rodrigues, r/o H.No.67, Sonar Peth, Bicholim Goa. Respondent (Original Complainant) For the AppellantShri A. R. S. Netravalkar, Advocate For the Respondent.. Shri Kankonkar, Advocate and Advocate S. Fadte holding for Advocate Kubal present at the time of order. Dated:11-02-2010 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. Is an insurance claim under process rendered non-maintainable upon tracing of the stolen vehicle? This, in a nutshell, is the issue that crystallizes for our consideration in this appeal.
2. The appellant is the Insurance Company and the original opposite party. They are aggrieved by the order dated 25-09-2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa in Consumer Dispute no 65/2003. The respondent is the original complainant.
3. Succinctly, facts of the complaint are that the respondent/complainant insured his vehicle Tata Sumo with the appellant/opposite party in May 2001. The vehicle was stolen in Bandra Mumbai during the intervening night of 18-08-2001 and 19-08-2001 when the same was parked outside the respondents residence. A complaint was lodged at Bandra Police Station on 19-08-2001 and FIR was registered. The respondent then submitted a claim with the appellant and in December 2001 the parties agreed for a settlement of Rs.3,95,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant made a volte-face and alleged that a vehicle was traced at Jodhpur Rajasthan, where upon the respondent left for Jodhpur alongwith a PSI and a constable from Bandra Police Station. But, after a weeks stay in Jodhpur, the police team learnt that the vehicle had been re-sold to one T. P. Singh. The respondents claim was repudiated by letter dated 01-11-2002 leading to filing of the complaint.
4. Per contra, the opposite party/appellant in their defense contended that the claim was beyond scope of settlement since it had been traced by the police during the last stage of processing of the claim and as such the complainant was only entitled to the damages if any after getting it surveyed. The complainant was informed by letter dated 08-02-2002 as to the recovery of the said vehicle at Rajasthan and by further letter dated 13-05-2002 that the claim was no longer maintainable. It was alleged that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Abu Bakar at Jodhpur.
5. The District Forum, on going through the material on record, observed that the opposite party/appellant had been unable to prove that the complainant had sold the vehicle to the said Abu Bakar while the complainant had maintained that he had never sold the vehicle to any one. The appellant was directed to pay the complainant the sum of Rs. 3,95,000/- with interest and other compensation.
6. We heard Ld. Adv. Shri A. R. S. Netravalkar on the behalf of the appellant and Ld. Adv. Shri Kankonkar for the respondent. Records and proceedings of the trial forum were called and perused.
7. The crux of the dispute lies in the appellants contention that the stolen vehicle had been traced in Jodhpur with one Abu Bakar and hence the respondents claim was no longer maintainable. Reliance was placed on an order issued by C. J. M. Jodhpur concluding that the vehicle had been sold by the complainant to Abu Baker and accordingly possession of the vehicle was handed to Abu Bakar. Copy of the order is placed in the file. The appellant has also relied on a letter dated 03-07-2003 written by Sr. Inspector Bandra Police Station to the respondent/complainant to the effect that the vehicle is in possession of Abu Bakar by virtue of the said order of C. J. M Jodhpur, and that the Sardarpura (Jodhpur) Police and the Bandra Police have appealed against the C. J. Ms order in the Sessions Court Jodhpur in Case no. 27/2002. The fact of the allegedly stolen vehicle being traced in Jodhpur is indisputable. The chassis and engine numbers of the stolen property recovered by Jodhpur Police being identical to the vehicle in the respondents FIR is admitted by Bandra Police. In such circumstances, the respondents claim to the insurance company to underwrite the loss of the stolen vehicle would become infructuous and redundant. We are inclined to agree with the appellant that the respondents claim was no longer maintainable with the stolen vehicle having been located.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed heavy reliance on the letter of subrogation issued by him to the appellant. It is his case that once such letter was issued, it was upto the Insurance Company to recover the vehicle. Admittedly, the letter of subrogation was taken by the appellant as part of the claim settlement process; needless to say, it would take effect only after the final settlement of the claim on payment of the claim amount. The stolen vehicle was traced before that stage was reached. The document does not come to the complainants aid. As for the recovery of the stolen vehicle and its restoration to the rightful owner, it is for the respondent to pursue the matter with the police and the judicial authorities in Jodhpur before whom it is said to be pending. At any rate, the appellant Insurance Company does not have any role to play in the matter.
9. The foregoing aspects of the matter were not considered by the Trial Forum. In our considered view, in the facts and under the circumstances, repudiation of the respondents claim does not constitute deficiency in services rendered by the appellant. As such, the complaint was not maintainable on its merits.
10. In the result, we pass the following order:
(a) Appeal no.
65/2008 is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 25-09-2008 is hereby set aside.
(c) Consumer Dispute No. 65/2003 on the file of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa stands dismissed.
(d) In the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member