Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Nitin Gopalrao Vaidya vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., on 27 January, 2011

                                   1                        F.A.No. :1673/2006




                               Date of filing:19.08.2006
                               Date of order:27.01.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


F.A. NO.:1673 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. :53 OF 2004
DISTRICT FORUM : JALNA.


Nitin Gopalrao Vaidya,
Residing at Shastri Moholla,
Old Jalna, Tq.Dist.Jalna.                      ...APPELLANT
                                               (Org.Complainant)

VERSUS


Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office,Jalna,
Sarojinidevi Road,
Jalna - 431 203.                               ...RESPONDENT
                                               (Org.Opponent)


            Coram :     Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                        Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.Sagar Adhav for appellant, Adv.Shri.J.K.Narayane for respondent.

O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. The present appeal is filed by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2006 in complaint case No.53/2004 passed by District Forum, Jalna.

2. Appellant/Org.Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, he had obtained package policy for motor-cycle bearing No.MH-21/B-8844 for sum assured of Rs.30,000/- for the period 12.8.2002 to 11.8.2003. It is alleged that he had put handle lock and parked the vehicle in front of house on 14.8.2002. It is alleged that in the night 14.8.2002 & 15.08.2003 the vehicle has been stolen. Accordingly, he approached the police station and FIR was lodged. It is alleged that in the investigation of the police neither accused was found nor vehicle was attached. Appellant gave notice dated 12th January 2004 for amount insured. Notice was not responded. Thus he approached the Forum.

3. Present respondent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is alleged that the claim could not be settled as required documents were not produced by appellant. It is alleged that investigator was appointed but complainant did not cooperate the investigator. Complainant was asked to submit final report, police papers, and certified copy of the policy. It was also found in the investigation that motor-cycle is in possession of one Shri.Ashok Vasantrao R/o Vesai Peth, Beed who is said to have stated that he had purchased motor-cycle from complainant. Complainant did not clarify this fact. It is also alleged that said motor-cycle was attached by police under panchama. Accordingly, complainant was informed vide letter dated. 15.12.2003. Complainant did not clarify and thus claim could not be settled.

4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties directed appellant/org.complainant to produce required papers alongwith explanation regarding query made by insurance company and after receipt of those insurance company is directed to settle the claim.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum,Jalna, original complainant came in appeal.

6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent. Learned counsel Shri.Sagar Adhav appeared on behalf of appellant whereas learned counsel Shri.J.K.Narayane appeared on behalf of respondent . According to learned counsel Shri.Adhav, appellant had submitted all the papers called by insurance company. He also replied the letter given by the respondent. There was no necessity to ask papers from police.

7. On the contrary, learned counsel Shri.J.K.Narayane fully supported the judgment and order passed by the Forum.

8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the counsels. On perusal of papers, it reveals that it is the contention of respondent that investigator was appointed and in the investigation it was found that motor-cycle in question is in possession of one Shri.Ashok Vasantrao who is alleged to have stated that he has purchased the motor-cycle from the complainant. Not only that it is also mentioned that said motor-cycle has been seized by police under panchanama. Accordingly, letter dated 15.12.2003 has been issued to complainant, complainant did not clarify all these points. When respondent pointed out that motor-cycle has been seized by police under panchama it was necessary for complainant to obtain clarification from the police that investigation in the offence in which A-summary was granted has not been opened by police and there is no seizer by police. The Forum below has rightly asked to produce all the papers alongwith explanation for settlement of the claim in question. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Dist.Forum.

Appellant will be at liberty to knock the doors of the Forum if the order of insurance company is goes against him. We pass the following order.

                                O   R       D   E    R
   1.    Appeal is dismissed.
   2.    No order as to cost.
   3.    Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

K.B.Gawali,              Mrs.Uma S.Bora                  S.G.Deshmukh,
 Member                     Member                  Presiding Judicial Member

Mane