Order

NAGALAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NAGALAND: KOHIMA FA 3/2019 The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, Dimapur Divisional Office, Dhobinullah, Dimapur …Appellant -vrs-

1. Mr. Bendangniken s/o K. Senti, Lengrijan, Dimapur.

PO Dimapur

1. Mr. Ramdarash Mahato s/o Jaikishun Mahato, Murgipatti, Naga Bazar, Dimapur, PO Dimapur ○

Present:

For the Appellants : Moajungla (Adv)

For the Respondents : Bendangwapang (Adv)

Date of Hearing : 01.10.2022 Date of Judgement : 20.05.2023 This is an appeal against the decision of the judgement and order dated

19.09.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission in CFD No. 1 of

2018. Appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Imti Imsong (adv) submits as follows:

1. That the synopsis of case of the appellant is that, the vehicle bearing no NL07A-

5737 was insured with be appellants' company by insurance policy vide no.

202500/31/15/6300001530 having validity from 28/10/2015 to 27/10/2016. The subject vehicle was insured in the name of Shri. Ramdarash Mahato. It was that the said vehicle went missing on 11/05/2016 along with driver; however, the alleged missing report was intimated to the appellant only on 23/05/2016 by Mr.

Bendangniken (Respondent no. 1). It may be expedient to mention herein that the alleged missing vehicle was seen to have lodged to the concerned police station on 25/05/2016. The person who has intimated to be appellant about the alleged missing vehicle is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. As stated above the claim form was duly signed by the Respondent No. 1 on 23/05/2016 and the appellant instructed him to submit all the vehicular documents with the FIR lodged to the concerned police station. However, despite the repeated reminders and requests to the registered owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 2) could not submit the complete vehicular documents to the appellant.

Certified true copy of the insurance policy in respect of vehicle No. NL07A-

5737 (Tata Mobile) is annexed herewith as Annexure-1

1. That the appellant begs to state that the registered owner of the vehicle is Shri.

Ramdarash Mahato and not Mr. Bendangniken, as such the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Bendangniken has no insurable interest in the present case. It may be mentioned herein that the alleged subject vehicle was reported to have gone missing on 11/05/2016; However as per the Fist Information Report (under section

154 Cr.P.C) copy issued by the Officer-in-Charge of the West Police Station Dimapur is seen to have registered as FIR No.0100/16 dated 25/5/2016. Hence, the issue regarding the alleged missing of the vehicle was not thoroughly and sincerely examined by the learned District Consumer Commission Dimapur (erstwhile District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum) of the trial of the case.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dimapur hereinafter referred to as “the learned District Consumer Commission”.

5. That the appellant begs to state and submit that to expedite the claim, the appellant instructed the respondent No.2 to submit the copy of registration certificate of the missing vehicle, driving license of the driver and all related documents. However, despite of lapses of several months the respondents could not submit the requisite documents for settlement of the claim.

6. That the respondents utterly failed to co-operate with the appellant for early settlement of the claim, the appellant had intimated the respondent No.2 to submit all relevant documents pertaining to the alleged missing vehicle with the Final report, however inspite of lapses of several months and repeated request the respondent could not submit the requisite documents for settlement of the claim and for which the appellant was compelled to close the claim as of administrative procedures and norms.

7. That under the facts and circumstances aforestated the claim of the respondent could not be settled as expected solely due to non-cooperation of the respondent/vehicle owner. AS s