State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Shri Akhlender Singh Guleria on 22 August, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.207/2011
Date
of Decision: 22.08.2012
1. National
Insurance Company Limited,
Dharamshala,
District Kangra,
Through
Divisional Office, Himland Hotel,
Circular
Road, Shimla,
Through
its Divisional Manager.
2. National
Insurance Company Limited,
K.B.
Dharamshala, District Kangra,
Through
its Administrative Officer Shri P.S. Guleria.
..
Appellants
Versus
Shri Akhlender Singh Guleria son
of Shri Rajinder Singh Guleria,
Resident of Village and Post
office, Trilokpur,
Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra,
H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the
Appellants: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Naresh Kumar
Thakur, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent Akhlender Singh Guleria has been allowed and they (the appellants) have been ordered to pay not only the insurance money amounting to `9,09,580/-, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss of the insured vehicle to the date of its payment, but also a sum of `50,000/- as damages and `10,000/- by way of litigation costs.
2. Respondent Akhlender Singh Guleria purchased chassis of a truck and got the same insured with the appellants. The chassis was delivered for body fabrication to M/s Hans Paul Steel, Damtal, from whose workshop, it had allegedly been stolen on 30.07.2007 at 1.00 a.m. Respondent informed the appellants about the theft of the vehicle. Report with the police was lodged by an employee of body maker, to whom chassis has been given for the purpose. Claim was lodged by the respondent with the appellants for the insurance money.
Appellants repudiated the claim on the ground that due care and caution had not been taken to protect the insured vehicle against theft/burglary.
3. Respondent felt aggrieved by repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants.
4. Appellants contested the complaint alleging that due care and caution had not been taken to safeguard the insured truck. Various preliminary objections were also raised and one of them was that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of M/s Hans Paul Steel, Damtal, who were the bailees, as the truck had been given to them for fabrication of body. Learned District Forum has not dealt with this issue and allowed the complaint.
5. Admittedly, the truck at the time of its alleged theft was with M/s Hans Paul Steel, Damtal to whom it had been given for construction of its body.
Therefore, primarily it were said M/s Hans Paul Steel, Damtal, who became liable for the loss of the insured vehicle, being bailees. Loss of bailed goods by the bailee is an act of deficiency in service and action under the Consumer Protection Act, can be initiated against the bailee. Since the bailee was primarily liable for the loss of the vehicle, it (the bailee) was a necessary party and objection raised by the appellants ought to have been considered and dealt with by the learned District Forum before passing the impugned order.
6. Consequently, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is remanded to the learned District Consumer Forum, with a direction to decide the same afresh, after affording an opportunity to the respondent/complainant to implead the aforesaid bailee as party.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 18.09.2012.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member August 22, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?