National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt.Suman vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 442 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 09.10.2012 in First Appeal No. 873/2012 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) WITH IA/779/2013 (Exemption to File Certified Copy) Smt. Suman W/o Sh.Surender, R/o VPO Bidhal Tehsil Gohana, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana ... Petitioner Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental House, A-25-27, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi Through its Manager Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Chaudhary, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON_26.02.2013 O R D E R JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the State Commission in FA No.873/2012, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Suman by which, while allowing appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioners truck HR/69A/2637 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of 1 year, from 21.12.2008 to 20.12.2009. During the substance of the insurance policy, vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 11/12.06.2009. Complainant lodged FIR No.193, dated 15.06.2009 with the concerned Police Station and intimation was also given to OP. As OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 15.07.2011, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before the District Forum. OP resisted the claim and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as FIR was lodged after 4 days and intimation to OP was given on 25.06.2009, i.e., after 14 days of alleged theft, and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed OP to make payment of Rs.11,52,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.2,000/- as compensation. 4. OP filed appeal against the order of the District Forum and learned State Commission vide its impugned order, while accepting the appeal, dismissed the complaint against which this revision petition has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner lodged FIR on 12.06.2009 even then learned State Commission has committed error in holding that FIR was lodged on 15.06.2009 and further committed error in allowing the appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground of delay in intimation to respondent. 6. It is an admitted case that the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 11/12.06.2009. Copy of FIR (Anx.P-7) clearly reveals that FIR was lodged on 15.06.2009. Complainant has mentioned in the report that as she did not find vehicle in the morning of 12.06.2009 and had no doubt on any person, she tried to search at her own level and as she could not find the vehicle, she is lodging the report. Merely because the reason for delay has not been written by the Police personnel who chalked information, it cannot be interfered that FIR was lodged on 12.06.2009. As FIR was lodged on 15.06.2009 at 3.40PM, i.e., after more than 85, and intimation to OP/respondent was given on 25.06.2009, i.e. after 14 days of alleged theft, the learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint on the basis of judgment rendered by this Commission in FA 321/2005, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane and by Honble Apex Court in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP). In Trilochan Janes case also, there was delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR and delay of 9 days in giving intimation to insurance company and on the ground of delayed information, this Commission dismissed the complaint. Facts of the present case are similar to Trilochan Janes case and
learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing the appeal.
7. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to costs.
..J (K. S. CHAUDHARI ) PRESIDING MEMBER dd/11