State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Dvnl.Manager, vs Smt.Manjiri Sandeep Singh on 14 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 First Appeal No. A/07/411 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/08/2008 in Case No. CC/04/88 of District None) 1. The Senior Dvnl.Manager, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Dvn.Office No.1, 15, AD Complex, 1st floor, Mount Road Ext. Sadar, Nagpur 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Dvn.Office No.1, 15, AD Complex, 1st floor, Mount Road Ext. Sadar, NAGPUR through the Senior Dvnl. Manager, Vs. 1.SMT.MANJIRI SANDEEP SINGH R/o flat No.6, Vaibhav Flats, Tilak Nagar, Amravati Rd., NAGPUR BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr.B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. N.Arumugam MEMBER PRESENT: D.N.KUKDAY, Advocate for the Appellant 1 ......for the Appellant J.BHOOT, Advocate for the Respondent 1 ......for the Respondent ORDER
(Order date 14/8/2013) PER SHRI.B.A.SHAIKH,HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/8/2006 passed in CC No.88/2004 by District Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that the Maruti Zen Vxi car was purchased by him (complainant) on 9/11/2001 from Seva Automotives Pvt.Ltd. by obtaining loan from M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd. Nagpur. The said car was insured with the Ori.Opponents (for short OP Nos.1 & 2) on 9/11/2001 for the period from 3.00 p.m.of 9/11/2001 till midnight of 8/11/2012. The said car was comprehensively insured for Rs.4,28,400/-. The complainant had parked that car in the parking place of his house at Nagpur in the evening on 9/11/2001. On the next date, i.e.on 10/11/2001, he found that the car was missing from that place. Therefore, he lodged report at Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur on 10/11/2001 and crime No.339/01 was registered for the offence punishable U/s 379 of IPC. Information about the theft of that car was also given by the complainant to OP Nos.1 & 2. The claim papers were submitted by the complainant to them. However, the claim was not settled by them inspite of repeted requests made by the complainant to them. On the contrary, they, vide letter dated 8/1/2002 advised the complainant to visit police station, Chandrapur to identify the vehicle which was seized by Police. The complainant inspected that vehicle and found that it does not belong to him. The Engine number and Chassis Number of that vehicle were tampered with and the vehicle was registered with RTO though the complainant did not registered it with any RTO. Therefore, he informed the Ops on 12/8/2002 that the car does not belong to him. He, therefore, vide letter dated 16/9/2002 and vide notice dated 3/3/2004 called upon the Ops to settle the claim and make the payment. However, it was not settled. Therefore, the complainant claimed total amount of Rs.6,20,872/- with interest specified in the complaint, from the OP_ Nos.1 & 2.
3. The said complaint was resisted by Ori.OP 1 & 2 by filing common written version. It is their case, in brief, that the stolen vehicle of the complainant was seized by the Chandrapur police and complainant was called upon by them to take its possession. But the complainant as well as the M/s Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Co.Ltd. on inspection of that vehicle, said that its engine number and chassis number are tampered with and it has been also registered and, therefore, it is not the stolen vehicle belonging to the complainant. They also submitted that they had appointed Investigator Shri.Rajesh D.Thakur, an advocate of Chandrapur, who, after investigation, reported that it is the same vehicle which was stolen away from the complainant. It is, also submitted by OP Nos.1 & 2 that the thieves had tampered with the aforesaid numbers and on the basis of forged documents, got it registered with RTO of Chandrapur and, therefore, police filed chargesheet against them. Thus, according to them, there is no deficiency in service on their part provided to the complainant, and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Forum below, after considering evidence brought on record, found that there is a doubt as to whether the vehicle of the complainant stolen away from his possession is the same which is seized by police, as there is tampering with the Engine number & Chassis number of the seized vehicle. It also found that as the complainant, after inspection of that vehicle found that it does not belong to him, he can not be compelled to take the said vehicle as it would amount to injustice. Therefore, it directed the OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,28,400/- with interest @9% p.a. from 26/3/2004 till its realization to the complainant and also to pay him Rs.1000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings.
5. The Ori.OP No.1 & 2, feeling dissatisfied by the said order, preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard Ld.Advocates of the appellant and Respondent/Ori.complainant who also filed written notes of arguments, which we have perused. We have also perused the papers placed before us.
7. The Ld.Advocate of the appellant argued that the police arrested the accused who committed the theft and filed Chargesheet against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Majistrate, Chandrapur, which is pending. He has invited our attention to the fact that the investigator Shri.Rajesh Thakur in his first, second and final reports filed before the Forum, observed that there is tampering of Digit No.6 to Digit No.8 in respect of the Engine Number and Chassis Number and other digits are the same which are of the vehicle belonging to the complainant and, therefore, it is clear that the seized car is of the complainants stolen car and hence according to him, the impugned order is illegal and it may be set-aside.
8. On the other hand, the Ld.Advocate of the Resp./Ori.complainant submitted that it is not established that the seized car is the same which was purchased by the complainant. He also argued that once chassis number and Engine Number are tampered with, there can not be proof about the original Chassis number and the Engine Number. He supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
9. We have called the original R&P of the complaint and perused the same. It is seen that on the report of the complainant police made investigation and after due investigation, police filed final report in the Court of CJM Nagpur on 24/3/2002. As per that final report, the stolen car of the complainant was not traced out and, therefore, police sought permission to grant A Summary. In our view, when, police, after due verification found that the car of the complainant was not traced out, and when police, in the final report, also submitted that the seized car was stolen away from Nashik or Mumbai and not from Nagpur, then, it can not be said that the said seized car of which Chassis number and the Engine Number are tampered with belongs to the complainant.
10. It is also pertinent to note that police of Chandrapur filed Charge Sheet in the Court of CJM Chandrapur against certain Accused persons for committing forgery by preparation of false documents, relating to seized car using them for purpose of registration of that Car and for cheating. The copy of that chargesheet was filed before the Forum below. The said charge sheet does not show that the car seized by the police at Chandrapur is owned by the present complainant/Respondent herein. Therefore, filing of the said charge sheet without showing that the car belongs to the complainant, is also one of the circumstance which falsifies the stand taken by the appellant that the said car belongs to the complainant.
11. The appellant has relied upon the three reports of the Investigator Shri.Rajesh Thakur appointed by it. He is an Advocate by profession. He is not an expert in verifying the original Chassis number and the Engine Number after their tampering with. In our view, as the opinion of said Investigator is simply based on his assumptions and presumptions, his said opinion can not be said to be sufficient to prove that the seized car is owned by the complainant/Respondent herein. The car was stolen away immediately from Nagpur after it was newly purchased by the complainant. It was not yet registered with RTO. There was no identification marks thereon besides its Chassis number and the Engine Number. Therefore, as the same numbers are tampered with, it can not be conclusively said on the basis of evidence available that it is the same car which belongs to the complainant.
12. Thus, we hold that the District Forum below has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to the assured sum as the car belonging to the complainant insured with the OP/appellant has been stolen away and not traced out. There is deficiency in service provided by the appellant to the complainant as it did not pay the sum assured to the complainant.
13. We also find that as the car was new and its Insured Declared Value accepted by the Appellant was 4,28,400/-, the District Forum below has rightly directed the OP No.1 & 2/appellant to pay the said amount with interest @9% p.a. from 26/3/2004 to the complainant. Moreover, compensation of Rs.1000/- towards mental harassment and cost of Rs.1000/- is rightly awarded by the District Forum below. There is no error in the impugned order for interference in this appeal. We find no merits in this appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER :
1.
The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. The Original R &P of the complaint be sent back to the Forum below.
Dated 14/08/2013 [ Hon'ble Mr.B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [HON'BLE Mr. N.Arumugam] MEMBER