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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Prem Narain, Member
M/s. Ram Gopal Industries —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2082 to 2083 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 28/06/2012 in Appeal No. 37/2012 & 93/2012 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 11.1.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Hooda, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay of about 7 months in filing revision cannot be condoned.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft in premises—Insurance claim repudiated ground that intimation regarding change of premises was never given to it—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Petitioner has not mentioned at all date, time, place and nature of accident—No medical record in support of injuries sustained by petitioner has been placed on record—In absence of complete record with regard to accident as well as relevant medical record, no sufficient cause has been shown to seek condonation of inordinate delay of about 7 months in filing revision—Gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to petitioner—Revision petition dismissed being barred by limitation. (Paras 17 to 19)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

Petitioner/Complainant, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 28.06.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal Nos.37 & 93 of 2012) has filed above noted revision petitions under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts are that, petitioner has secured loan from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No. 2 who got insured the plant and machinery to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and stock of raw-materials finished and unfinished for a sum of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 18.07.2007 to 17.07.2008 with Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that payment of premium of insurance has been made by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 1 at every renewal. On 23/24.02.2008 in the premises of petitioner theft took place. FIR was registered. Intimation of which was given to respondent no.1 in time. Surveyor was appointed and required information was supplied to the surveyor. It is further alleged, that petitioner had shifted premises from 141 IDC Hisar Road, Rohtak where the unit was running to 98, IDC, Hisar Road Rohtak and intimation of the same was given to respondent no.2. Petitioner never signed any proposal form of respondent no.1, however the same was being done by respondent no.2. Petitioner requested several times but the claim has been closed as “No Claim” by respondent no.1, vide letter dated 12.06.2008 on the ground of intimation regarding change of the premises was never given to it and the stock stolen was under trust received from M/s. Indian Fasteners Limited whereas, the insurance was taken against the stock mortgaged to bank only. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of respondents, petitioner filed consumer complaint before the District Forum

3. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement by raising therein the plea, that premises has never been insured with respondent no.1. Thus, petitioner was not entitled for any compensation and denying any kind of deficiency in service on its part.

4. Respondent No.2 raised the plea, that it is not its duty to intimate the respondent no.1 regarding change of address of petitioner .

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 20.12.2011, allowed the (Consumer Complaint No.360 of 2008) and granted following reliefs:

“ ……. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the respondent no.1, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited shall pay a sum of Rs.4,16,955/- as assessed by the surveyor vide its report Ex.R-4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 25.2.2008 till its actual realization. Similarly, the respondent no.2 the Oriental Bank of Commerce shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation to the complainant for patent deficiency in service and gross negligence in the matter for which the complainant has been deprived on his lawful claim and has to suffer the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the negligence of OP No.2 in the matter. The respondent no.2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of respondent. It is also made clear that the bank shall also not charge interest on the loan of complainant upto the amount of loss assessment from the date of theft till the decision of the case. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

6. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 filed (First Appeal No.37 of 2012), whereas Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No. 2 filed (First Appeal No.93 of 2012), challenging the order of District Forum.

7. The State Commission vide impugned order, accepted both appeals. It set aside the order of District Forum and consequently, dismissed the consumer complaint.

8. Now, Petitioner/Complainant has come before this Commission. Along with present petition, pe























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top