State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uiic vs Vijay K. Sharma on 14 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1575 of 2004
Date of institution: 30.12.2004
Date of decision : 14.07.2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dasuya through its Regional Manager.
.....Appellants
Versus
Vijay K. Sharma s/o Mulkh Raj Sharma, Prop. Vijay corner, Imli Chowk, Dasuya,
The Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 13.10.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Paramjit Batta, Advocate for Sh.I.P.Puri, Advocate For the respondent : None JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The respondent was running the shop of readymade garments and hosiery goods. He had taken the insurance policy for the period from 26.7.2002 to 25.7.2003 from the appellants. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, a theft took place on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003 and the goods/cash for the value of Rs.47,475/- were stolen. The respondent reported the matter to the police on 1.4.2003. The appellants repudiated the insurance claim. Hence, the complaint for insurance claim, compensation and costs.
2. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent was running the business of readymade garments/hosiery goods and he had taken the insurance policy from the appellants. It was admitted that the First Appeal No.1575 of 2004 2 respondent had lodged DDR No.15 dated 1.4.2003 with the police regarding the alleged theft on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003. However, it was denied if any theft in fact had taken place. Therefore, the insurance claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated 7.5.2003.The respondents had not reported the matter to the police immediately after the occurrence and he has not even given any opportunity to the surveyor to assess the loss. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. The respondent proved documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11. He also filed his affidavit Ex.C12. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of K.R.Hira, Branch Manager as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
4. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 13.10.2004 with costs of Rs.1000/- and directed the appellants to pay the insurance claim of Rs.47,475/- to the respondent.
5. Hence, this appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2004 be set aside.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. It is not disputed that Vijay Kumar Sharma respondent was running the business of readymade garments/hosiery goods and he had taken the insurance policy from the appellants for the period from 26.7.2002 to 25.7.2003 Ex.R2. The theft had allegedly taken place on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003.
9. If it had been so, the matter would have been reported to the police by the respondent without delay. However, the respondent got registered the DDR No.15 dated 1.4.2003 at 11.10 a.m. (Ex.C1).
10. As per the version of the respondent, he had gone to Delhi/Bihar from Dasuya on 17.3.2003. He was in Bihar on 22.3.2003 when he was informed on telephone by his Manager Varinder Kumar that the theft had taken place on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003. As per the contents of the FIR (Ex.C1), the First Appeal No.1575 of 2004 3 respondent directed his Manager not to take any legal action on this theft. He also told that he would come back and, thereafter, he would take the necessary steps including reporting of the matter to the police. He returned from Bihar on 1.4.2003 and reported the matter to the police.
11. This version of the respondent is absolutely unbelieveable and improbable. If the theft had taken place on the night intervening 21/22.3.2003, the Manager should have reported the matter to the police or the Manager would have reported the matter to the family members of the respondent and the family members of the respondent would have counted the loss and reported the matter to the police or they would have given information to the appellants. But it is unbelieveable if the respondent directed his Manager not to take any legal action in the matter.
12. Even in the FIR dated 1.4.2003 (Ex.C1), the loss of Rs.47,475/- is not mentioned. It is also not specified as to how much cash was stolen or how many readymade garments/hosiery goods were stolen. Rather even on 1.4.2003, he reported to the police that he would enquire into the matter and give the details of the readymade clothes/hosiery goods or of the cash stolen. This story is not, at all, believeable.
13. Moreover, after the respondent reported the matter to the appellants, they appointed the Surveyor and the Surveyor submitted his report dated 5.4.2003 Ex.R4 and reported as under : -
"INSPECTION AND REPORT :
Pursuant to the instructions received from the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Pathankot we the undersigned visited to the shop of the insured at Dasuya on 02.04.2003 to survey the loss. When we reached at the shop, we found the shop intact and the business was doing by the insured as usual. There was no sign of First Appeal No.1575 of 2004 4 theft. All the material lying in the shop was found intact. The information of the theft was given to the insurance company on 01.04.2003, while the theft took place on 21/22.03.2003. The reason of the delay is best known to the insured and raises the certain question marks. It was not possible for us to assess the loss in the absence of any concrete evidence. The FIR has also been lodged 01.04.03 as evident from the FIR.
The DDR is of 01.04.2003. At the time of our inspection, we found all the stock intact in the boxes or in other type of packing. We got the copy of FIR, Insurance cover note and loss statement from the insured. We made no commitment with the insured. We did not get the satisfactory answer from the insured regarding the delay in informing the insurance company of theft. We also informed the insured that it is not possible for us to survey/assess the loss at this time."
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the appellants were justified in repudiating the claim.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2004 is set aside.
16. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.24,238/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.24,238/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 9.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1575 of 2004 5
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER June 14, 2010.
Paritosh