M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No.802 / 2019.

Vijay s/o Shri Kanwarlal Jain, R/o Nai Abadi, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh. …. APPELLANT.

Versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., In front of Nutan School, Mhow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P.). …. RESPONDENT.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of O R D E R

Order

31.05.2022 Ms. Kalpana Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard.

This is an appeal challenging the order dated 9.4.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Mandsaur (for short the “District Commission”) in CC No.191/2018.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the case of the appellant – complainant before the District Comission was to the effect that his motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 14 MV 1509, which was insured with the respondent – Insurance Company was stolen on 16.9.2017 of which report was lodged at City Police Station, Mandsaur on 16.9.2017 itself. According to the appellant – complainant when he went to intimate the Insurance Company about the incident he was informed to lodge the claim after closure report is submitted by the police. On receipt of the closure report he approached to the respondent – Insurance Company with relevant documents on 23.3.2018. However, the respondent –Insurance Company did not receive the papers. Aggrieved he sent a legal notice on 30.10.2018 of which no reply was given by the respondent – Insurance Compay. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent – Insurance Company in not making the payment of the claim, the complaint case was filed.

3. The respondent – Insurance Company in its reply though has accepted that the vehicle was insured, but denied the intimation about the alleged theft was even given to them. They also denied the other allegations that the appellant was told to give for compensation after getting the closure report. It has also been stated in the reply that the notice issued by the appellant / complainant was duly replied. According to the respondent the appellant never submitted the claim before them and as such no question of taking any decision on the said claim arose.

4. The District Commission after considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties vide impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant had failed to submit the claim before the respondent – Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that from the documents and the legal notice it is evident that the appellant – complainant had approached to the respondent – Insurance Company intimating the incident but no heed was paid by the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company has supported the impugned order and has stated that from the evidence as available on record it is not established by the appellant that the appellant had ever submitted the documents along with the claim form.

7. On going through the record we find no ground to interfere in this appeal as there is no cogent evidence to establish that the appellant had submitted claim seeking compensation. However, we find that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent and about its theft police report was made. In the circumstances in the interest of justice, we accede to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that the appellant is permitted to file the documents relating to the incident of theft and other necessary papers and submit a claim for compensation before the respondent – Insurance Company. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall decide the appellant’s claim for compensation in accordance with law within two months from the date - 4 -

of receipt of the same. Neeless to say that we have not observed about merits of the claim and all available pleas are