State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar on 3 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 03.03.2008 Appeal No. A-1113/03 (Arising out of Order dated 13.02.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum( North West), CSC, Block-C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No.3850/01) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant U-59, J.K. House, Lampur Road, Through Delhi 110040. Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Through Manager, Advocate Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-II, Scope Building, Delhi. Versus Mr. Rajesh Kumar Respondent House No. 220, Alipur, Delhi-110036. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Admittedly respondent got his vehicle Tata Sumo insured against risk of theft for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. He preferred a claim with the appellant-company as the vehicle was stolen on 07.12.97 from the parking stand authorized by the MCD. He informed the police and lodged an FIR on 11.12.97 and also informed the appellant-company on 15.12.97. Since the police could not trace the stolen vehicle, the respondent lodged the claim with the appellant-company. He visited the office of the appellant-company several times. However, the claim was rejected being not maintainable on the ground that insurance was manipulated.
Consequently respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking indemnification of loss.
2. Vide impugned order dated 13.02.2000 which is an ex-parte order as no liberty was given to the appellant to put up his version, the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 3,30,000/- as value of the vehicle and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The impugned order has also been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following grounds :-
(i) That it is a case of getting a vehicle insured after the theft of the same in connivance/negligence with the officials of Insurance Company and by playing fraud not only upon the Insurance Company which is Govt. of India Undertaking but also with the District Forum by manipulating the service of the appellant/OP-1 and thereby getting appellant/OP-1 proceeded ex-parte.
(ii) That the respondent/complainant also managed to get the original file of their case misplaced in connivance some of the officials of appellant/OP-1 for which the Regional Office has referred the matter to its Vigilance Department also.
(iii) That validity of insurance was from 5.12.97 to 4.12.98 for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- and a vehicle was insured for private use only. There was no insurance of the vehicle from 8.11.97 to 4.12.97 and there was a break of 28 days between the reinsurance of the vehicle. There is no reason as to why the vehicle was not insured after the expiry of previous policy on 7.11.97. Further premium of the insurance was paid vide a third party cheque dated 5.12.97 alongwith a letter dated 5.12.97 which was not written by the insurer and the ink used in writing the letter dated 5.12.97 appears to be different and it was confirmed that Development Officer of the appellant-OP-1 admitted that the said letter and proposal form was collected after the insurance. Further, that 5.12.97 was Friday and the last working day of the week and was succeeded by two consecutive holidays i.e. 6.12.97 and 7.12.97(Saturday and Sunday) and the vehicle was purported to have been stolen on 7.12.97 i.e. Sunday.
4. Aforesaid contentions were required to be dealt with for just and material decision of the case. Even otherwise in the interest of principles of natural justice, the appeal is allowed but subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-.
5. Parties shall appear before the district Forum on 31.03.2008. The District Forum shall positively decide the matter within three months even if it is taken on day to day basis because of the claim of the respondent being more than 11 years old.
6. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
8. Announced on 3rd day of March, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc