Back
2011(3) CPR 216
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH
S. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Member and Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Haryana Warehousing Corporation through its Manager (Legal) —Respondent
First Appeal No.61 of 2011
Decided on 14.7.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Brig. B.S. Taunque, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot not keep theft claim pending for unlimited period for want of untraced report.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Insurance—Theft of food grains— Appellant/OP directed to pay Rs. 41,180/- alongwith 9% interest and cost of Rs.7,000—No concealment of any fact by complainant—Insurance policy do not contain any such provision which required complainant to submit any untraced report with respect to theft of food grains from godown—Untraced report is to be prepared and given by police over which complainant has no control—Police has its own ways of investigation and they do not complete investigation within a particular period, nor are they bound to give untraced report within a specific period—OPs could not keep claim pending for unlimited period for want of untraced report and they should have allowed claim after a period of 3-4 months, if goods were not recovered—OP held liable to pay Rs. 34, 080 ( price of 96 bags of wheat)—Impugned order accordingly modified. (Paras 18, 20 to 24)
Jagroop Singh, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.2.2011 rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and the appellant/OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.41,180/- alongwith interest @ 9% and Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got insured the food grains stock stored on the open plinth at State Warehouse, Palwal-II vide Insurance Policy No.46/03/7500043 with OP which was valid from 15.07.2003 to 14.07.2004. On the intervening night of 22/23.11.2003, a theft took place at the insured premises and 116 bags of wheat were found stolen from open plinth. The OP-Company was informed vide letter dated 25.11.2003. The complainant also lodged an F.I.R.No.1392 dated 23.11.2003 to this effect. According to the complainant, all the requisite documents for settlement of the claim of Rs.41,180/- were submitted with OP but the claim was filed on the ground that the untraceable report was not submitted. It was averred by the complainant that as the matter was still under investigation, therefore, the question of submitting the untraceable report did not arise. It was stated that the claim was filed by OP for want of untraceable report, which amounted to deficiency in service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.
3. The OP in their reply admitted the facts with regard to the insurance of the premises in question and the theft of 116 Bags of food grains. The main defence of the OP was that the claim of the complainant could not be settled for want of untraceable report which was not submitted by the complainant despite repeated letters. According to the OP, due to non-submission of the untraceable report, the claim of the complainant was closed as No claim. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint as mentioned in the opening para of this order.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.
6. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully.
7. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was delay of about six months in lodging the claim with the appellant which has not been explained and, therefore, due to this reason, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. He referred to Annexure A-3-A which was the Burglary Claim Form lodged with the appellant on 26.5.2004 whereas the theft had taken place on 23.11.2003. We do not find any merit in this argument. Annexure C-3 is the FIR showing that the theft had taken place on 23.11.2003. Annexure C-1 is the intimation given by the complainant to the OP on 24.11.2003 intimating the theft of 116 bags of wheat from the spot. In this manner the FIR as well as the intimation to the OP had been promptly given by the complainant. The claim was lodged with the OP in due course and the ld. Counsel for the appellant could not point out any such provision in the insurance policy in view of which the claim was barred by time.
8. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the complainant was directed in the year 2005 and 2006 to submit the untraced report duly counter signed by the SP/SSP and accepted by the Court. He referred to various letters (Annexure R-1 to R-9) in this respect. According to him, the case was closed as per letter dated 23.3.2006 for want of untraced report and, therefore, the present compl
