IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant is not entitled to any claim on account of theft of tractor if theft of tractor was not under cover of insurance policy.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1036 of 2009 – Vijay Kumar v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner hypothecated his tractor PB-07-N-4509 with OP No. 4/Respondent No.4. This tractor was insured with OP No. 1, 2 & 3/Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 and OP No. 4 was responsible for getting it insured. On 12.3.2007, tractor met with an accident which was seized by Police and was given on ‘spurdari’ to petitioner. On 5.1.2008, this tractor along with trolley was stolen and FIR was lodged on 15.1.2008 and intimation was also given to OPs. As claim was not settled, alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1, 2 & 3 resisted complaint and submitted that District Forum had no jurisdiction and as there was non-joinder of necessary parties, complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that tractor was insured to cover risk of third party for agriculture purpose only and no premium was paid to recover risk of theft or own damage and tractor was not insured comprehensively. It was further submitted that trolley was not covered in the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Respondent No. 4 resisted complaint and submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was covered by Tractor Welfare Fund Scheme and was entitled to get claim even then District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that petitioner’s tractor was insured by Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 under farmer’s package policy and third party coverage was given along with coverage to owner, driver and paid driver. Trolley was not covered under the policy. This policy does not contain coverage for theft. Learned District Forum rightly observed that tractor was not insured for theft purposes and learned State Commission rightly affirmed this finding. As tractor was not insured comprehensively and theft of tractor was not under cover of the insurance policy, complainant was not entitled to any claim on account of theft of tractor.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards Tractor Welfare Fund Scheme in which in Clause 1 (e) it has been mentioned that Tractor Welfare Fund shall be utilized to provide compensation in case of theft of the tractor. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document to prove that compensation for theft of the tractor under this scheme was to be provided by respondents and in such circumstances, petitioner cannot get any compensation from respondents on the basis of Tractor Welfare Fund Scheme.

7. Perusal of record further reveals that theft occurred on 5.1.2008, but FIR was lodged on 15.1.2008 and no specific date has been given regarding intimation to respondents. On account of delay in lodging FIR and intimation to Insurance Company, complaint was liable to be dismissed.

8. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner i