National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Naresh Walia on 8 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2211 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 07/08/2014 in Appeal No. 1670/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE III, 2ND FLOOR, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARESH WALIA S/O MR. DEV RAJ WALIAM R/O 70, S.B.I. COLONY, JAMALPUR AWANA, LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Advocate Dated : 08 Mar 2016 ORDER O R D E R (ORAL) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Counsel for the parties present. There is a delay of 110 days' in filing this Revision Petition. The Petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. It is explained that the impugned order was rendered on 07.08.2015. The same was sent through speed post, but the petitioner received it, on 12.02.2015. The envelope has been placed on the record in this respect, which supports the version given by the cousel for petitioner / insurance company. Again, the service was effected at Patiala Branch. The Patiala branch sent the same to Chandigarh Branch, on 23.02.2015. Then the opinion was given/ obtained and the delay of 110 days' occurred. But, if the time of six months is deducted, then the delay will be reduced to almost, 'nil'.
2. Even, if we assume that the Chandigarh Branch received the copy on 23.02.2015, there is further delay of 06 months. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before the District Forum, complainant had filed photocopies, which are dim and cannot be read, immediately.
3. We have also seen the file at Page 19 of District Forum i.e. the intimation to the police, but no seal appears, thereon. The police did not sign it in token of its receipt. The counsel for the complainant admits that the main document is not available. He also submits that he did not file the affidavit of SHO. He also did not make any attempt to get the original produced from the police station. Again, there was intimation to the petitioner / insurance company after 02 days. Original of page no. 30 of District Forum has not been produced. There is no evidence as to who had received it. It neither bears the signatures nor the stamp. Consequently, it took time to find out these documents and as such the delay occurred.
4. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the OP. Consequently, we hereby condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition.
5. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. The theft took place on 17.08.2009. Police report was lodged on 20.11.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the report was lodged on the same day, while the police report has already been discussed at page 19 of the Trial Court record. The original document did not see the light of the day. There is no seal, in respect of receipt of this order. Somebody has signed it in a haphazard way and written, 'S.H.O PS Sadar'. No evidence was produced from the PS, Sadar. It is not apparent as to who had signed it. We hereby asked the counsel for the complainant as to who had signed it, but he denied knowledge about it. As per his assertion, the same is signed by S.H.O. No reliance can be placed on this document. Such like documents can be created at any time. The S.H.O signed only, by putting one long line. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be the signature of the S.H.O. Moreover, such like documents are received by the Duty Officer and not the S.H.O.
6. Now, intimation was given to the insurance company, on 25.11.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was given, on 19.08.2009, which was received by the Insurance Company. That document neither bears the signature of the recipient nor does it bear the stamp of the insurance company. The counsel for the respondent / complainant submits that in the written statement the petitioner / OP has not denied this fact clearly, specifically and unequivocally. We have gone through the written statement. They have denied this fact and have not admitted this fact and further, have stated that the information was given after a considerable time. Consequently, this document cannot be relied upon.
7. It is held by this Commission and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again that the report of 'theft', must be lodged / intimation must be given to the insurance company, immediately, see "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha - Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane - First Appeal No. 321/2005 decided on 09.12.2009 and the Tata Motor Finance Limited vs. Ramesh Kumar & Anr. in RP No. 781 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014, by this bench.
8. Consequently, we accept the Revision Petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission, restore the order of the District Forum and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER