State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N I Co vs Abdul Jabbar Siddiqi on 5 July, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1995/278 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. N I Co A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Abdul Jabbar Siddiqi A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 05 Jul 2016 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW. APPEAL NO.278 OF 1995 (RESERVED) (Against the judgment/order dated 08.02.1995 in Complaint Case No.785/1992 of the District Consumer Forum, Bareilly.) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-2, 131 Civil Lines, Bareilly. Through its Branch Manager. ...............Appellant Vs Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui, S/o Abdul Gaffar, R/o 6, Bazaria Inayatganj, Purana Shahar, Pargana Tehsil & District- Bareilly. ...............Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Sri Arun Tandon, Advocate. Dated:15.07.2016 JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN Present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 herein after referred as Act by National Insurance Company Ltd. who is OP of complaint No.785/1992 Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. against judgment and order dated 08.02.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bareilly in said complaint whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed the complaint filed by Respondent Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui and has ordered Appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.88,387.50 with interest @18% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment.
-2-Learned Counsel Sri Deepak Mehrotra appeared for Appellant. Learned Counsel Sri Arun Tandon appeared for Respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through impugned judgment and order as well as records of the case.
Relevant brief facts for the determination of this appeal are that the Respondent/Complainant has filed a complaint against Appellant Insurance Company under Section 12 of the Act before District Consumer Forum, Bareilly claiming compensation of Rs.88,387.50 in terms of insurance policy No.6301082/09 of Appellant/OP.
In complaint it has been alleged that Respondent/Complainant has got insured his truck No.URW975 model EDG 1986 by Appellant Insurance Company, insurance policy was valid from 13.02.1989 to 12.02.1990. In the meantime on 26.02.1989 at about 11.30 pm said truck was stolen. He lodged report of theft in PS concerned, next day in the morning and during police investigation Complainant himself found his truck on 04.03.1989 standing at Bisalpur Road in District Bareilly. On inspection he found that 4 tyres with rim, stepney with tyre and rim, tool box, battery, Dynamo, self system, pump, gear box and other parts of truck have been removed by the thieves. He informed police about recovery of truck and thereafter police gave Supurdagi of truck to him. Later on he made claim before Appellant Insurance Company Ltd. for reimbursement of damages but Appellant Insurance Company rejected his claim vide order dated 15.02.1991. Therefore, being aggrieved with deficient service of Appellant Insurance Company Complainant/Respondent has filed above complaint before District Consumer Forum.
The Appellant Insurance Company has opposed complaint by filing written statement before District Consumer Forum. In his written statement he has stated that the claim of Complainant is false and imaginary. In written statement it has been stated by Appellant Insurance Company that after investigation the police has concluded that the report lodged by the Complainant was false. As such police has submitted final report. In written statement it has been further alleged by Appellant Insurance Company that according to recovery -3- memo prepared by police Respondent/Complainant himself came to police station making drive of said truck.
After having heard both the parties District Consumer Forum, Bareilly has passed impugned judgment and has ordered Appellant Insurance Company to pay above compensation for the loss suffered by the Complainant due to alleged removal of parts of truck by thieves.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for Appellant that the impugned judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum is against law and evidence.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the final report submitted by police has been accepted by Magistrate and no protest application is reported to have been filed by Complainant/Respondent against final report submitted by police. District Consumer Forum cannot ignore the conclusion of police investigation without sufficient base and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the conclusion drawn by police in investigation.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for Respondent/Complainant that the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law and evidence. Complainant has proved theft of parts of truck as alleged in complaint.
Learned Counsel for Appellant has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC rendered in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) New India Assurance Company Vs Trilochan Jane.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Final report submitted by police in crime No.170/89 under Section 379 IPC shows that this crime was registered on report of Complainant/Respondent for theft of his truck No.URW975 but on investigation police has drawn conclusion that the alleged incident of theft is not true and police has submitted final report. Final report submitted by police has not been set aside by competent Magistrate or higher Courts. Averments made in complaint shows that the truck has not been recovered by police but it has been recovered by the -4- Complainant himself, copy of Supurtagi Memo of truck No.URW975 prepared by police shows that the Complainant himself has brought the truck to police station by making drive of it. It shows that the truck was in running condition. If the parts of the truck allegedly removed by thieves were not present in the truck, the truck could not move from the alleged spot of recovery.
Impugned judgment and award of District Consumer Forum shows that District Consumer Forum has considered the final report submitted by police but has disbelieved it on the basis of affidavit filed on behalf of Complainant and photograph of truck. In impugned judgment and award District Consumer Forum has mentioned that the truck could not be brought to the police station without wheels, therefore the truck was brought to the police station after having fitted the wheels. In impugned judgment District Consumer Forum has accepted the incident of theft alleged by Complainant on the ground of photograph of truck taken after alleged recovery as well as affidavit filed in support of said photograph.
As mentioned above police has investigated the incident of theft reported by Complainant respondent and has concluded that incident of theft is false. Thereafter police has submitted final report with clear conclusion that the alleged incident of theft was false. Final report submitted by police has not been set aside by competent authority. There is nothing on record to show that after alleged recovery of truck on the place alleged by the Complainant police and Insurance Company were informed to verify the alleged recovery. If the parts of the truck were lost and were removed by thieves the Complainant/owner of the truck should have informed police and Insurance Company to verify the fact but he did not inform the Appellant Insurance Company and police about the alleged recovery of the truck at that time and Supurtagi Memo shows that the truck was brought by the Complainant in police station in driving condition.
In view of above, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the conclusion drawn by police in investigation cannot be rejected by District Consumer Forum as such -5- we are of the view that the conclusion drawn by District Consumer Forum is against law and evidence.
In IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) New India Assurance Company Vs Trilochan Jane Hon'ble NCDRC has held that "delay of 9 days to inform insurer would be a violation of condition of policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle."
In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is set aside.
(JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN) PRESIDENT (SMT. BAL KUMARI) MEMBER Sarika [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari] MEMBER