State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narender Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 8 November, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.11.2010 Appeal No. FA-10/405 (Arising out of Order dated 31.3.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, 150151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No. 854/6). Shri Narender Singh Appellant RZ-3, Indra Park, Main Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Divisional Office No.18, Shahpuri, Tirath Singh Tower, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter of not?
-2-Salma Noor, Member
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum dated 31.3.10 in case No. 854/06 by which District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, the appellant in this appeal.
2. In brief, the appellants case is that he obtained insurance policy No. 48/2001/749 for a total sum of Rs. 9,01,000/-. Out of the above said sum, insurance cover in respect of jewellery was for Rs. 6,03,000/- and the policy was valid for one year i.e. from 30.1.01 to 29.1.02. According to the appellant, the list of jewellery gold items got insured finds mention in Section G of the list appended to the insurance policy. On 27.1.02, when appellant was traveling from Delhi to Baraut(UP) by a UP Roadways bus, it is alleged that he lost his suitcase containing jewellery, costly clothes, camera and important documents detailed in para 4 of the complaint. On the same day i.e. on 27.1.02, appellant filed a report in Kotwali, Baghpat, UP. On 30.1.02, he sent an intimation to OP insurance company informing about the incident of theft of his jewellery which was duly acknowledged by OPs and on the request of the appellant, the OPs appointed a surveyor. With the intimation letter submitted by the complainant to OPs, insurance company appellant enclosed a copy of (i) Police report and (ii) All Risk claim form. It is alleged that the surveyor had not contacted him by the time he filed the complaint before the Forum. The complainant referred to certain letters in his complaint having been written by him to OPs insurance company to expedite the settlement of his claim but since there was no reply on the part of OPs insurance company, appellant was constrained to file the complaint before the District Forum for the following relief ;
(i) to pay him a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- for which he submitted a claim to respondents 1 & 2, -4-
(ii) to pay him compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for delay, harassment, mental agony,
(iii) to pay him cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant(appellant) on the following grounds:
(i) The circumstances, under which the suitcase is stated to be lost, reveal that the policy holder has failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the goods as a man of ordinary prudence inasmuch as he was negligent in leaving the suit case unattended and according to the law laid down by National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs T.V. Sarathi (II(2009) CPJ 169(NC, he is not entitled to be indemnified.
(ii) The complainant filed two claims under the same policy. There is difference in the contents of the policy filed in the instant case, the copy filed contains details of jewellery while in the earlier one those details were missing. This raises suspicious of manipulation in the documents. The complainant could not explain this discrepancy.
(iii) The complainant was contacted, as evident from the affidavit dated 3rd week of March filed by Shri Sanjay Diwedi, and was told about the documents required to finalise his report but he never responded. The complainant also failed to respond to his registered letter dated 11.4.02. The complainant did not avail this opportunity to substantiate his case and thereafter No claim report was submitted.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.
5. In this appeal the appellant has not cared to substantially assail the grounds on which his complaint was dismissed. Instead he alleged undue favour to the insurance company by the President District Forum.
6. It is surprising; if it was so to smell, he could have applied for transfer of his case to another Forum; such an allegation at this stage is nothing but an after thought. Even during the course of argument the counsel for the appellant could point out nothing substantial to disagree with the findings of the Trial Forum and to reverse its view on basis of the pleadings and evidence on record. We therefore upheld the view of the Trial Forum with the result the appeal is dismissed n limine.
7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
8. 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.
9. Announced on 8th day of November, 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc