SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta Member
Shri Jagdish Parshad —Petitioner
versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1996 of 2012
(From the order dated 13.03.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal no. 285 of 2012)
Decided on 14.05.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Tyagi, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not that every order passed by Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when same is based on sound reasoning.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 12—Insurance—Theft of Truck—Complaint dismissed by Fora below—Driver parked his truck and left truck for a period indefinitely leaving keys inside truck—Petitioner has not been able to establish that vehicle was snatched forcibly—Theft was also reported to police after almost 40 hours—Fora below have given cogent reasons in their order which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction—Revision petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000. (Paras 10 to 13, 19, 27 to 34)

       

JUDGMENT

Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 1996 of 2012 has been filed under section 21 (b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.03.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 285 of 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner is the absolute registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 39 L – 9211, Engine no. 697TC 56JUZ129779 and chassis no. 373145JUZ131288, Model 2005. The above said vehicle was got insured with the respondent nos.1 and 2 vide cover note bearing no. GD 3351281 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for the period from 04.10.2006 till 03.10.2007. The vehicle in question was also got insured earlier with the respondents no. 1 and 2 from October 2005 to October 2006. The complainant had got the above said vehicle financed with respondent no. 3 for an amount of Rs.6,64,000/- which was payable in equal instalments by the complainant to the respondent no. 3.

3. That on 14.04.2007 when the said vehicle reached village Gohapur, it was parked on the side to meet the call of nature. Meanwhile all of a sudden a Marshal Jeep came from Utawar side in which about 8-10 persons were sitting, out of them 4-5 persons came down from the said jeep and opened the window of the truck and took away the said truck forcibly. The driver as well as the cleaner of the truck made noise on seeing this and tried to take possession of the said truck, but all in vain because they were 8-10 numbers and there was apprehension of being done to death by the culprits.

4. After the above said incident, the driver of the truck informed about the above said fact to the complainant/owner of the truck and later on, the police of PS Hathin was informed about the same by the driver of the said truck. On the basis of said complaint, the police of PS Hathin, registered FIR bearing no. 79 dated 16.04.2007 under section 379 IPC. The complainant as well as driver and cleaner of the truck tried to search for the truck in question and later it was revealed that the culprits unloaded the stones lying in the truck at Jayanti Mour, near Curaksar Road, and ran away along with the empty truck.

5. Thereafter, the complainant intimated to the insurance agent namely Ashok Kumar on 15.04.2007 about the fact of snatching of the truck in question by the culprits and intimation in this regard was also sent to the bank authorities, i.e., respondent no. 6. On the basis of intimation, the respondent no. 1 and 2 registered the claim bearing no. 339569 dated 15.04.2007, being the insurer of the truck. The claim was not passed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 due to non-deposit of UNTRACED report with them. Thereafter the complainant obtained UNTRACED report issued by the concerned court, i.e., from the court of Shri Harish Gupta, JMIC, Nuh dated 07.11.2007 and submitted the same with the respondent no. 1 and 2 through its agent/ surveyor, namely H D Pandey, since the said agent/ surveyor was deputed for the said purpose by respondent no. 1 and 2.

6. Later on the said surveyor contacted the petitioner and obtained some signatures of the petitioner on some blank documents/papers and assured the petitioner that the claim amount shall be passed shortly.

7. The petitioner after that visited the office of respondent no. 1 and 2 to get released the insured amount of the vehicle in question, but the respondents no. 1 and 2 intentionally and deliberately, knowingly have been delaying the matter and putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other.

8. Due to non-availability of the above said vehicle the petitioner has been suffering from business loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per day with effect from 15.04.2007 till its realisation plus further loss towards the interest accruing on the finance amount raised by the respondent no. 3 and further the respondents no. 1 and 2 has withheld the insured amount to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- du






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top