STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 89 / 2015 The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office, Ambe Complex, Najibabad Road Kotdwar through The New India Assurance Company Limited Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, 430, Niranjanpur, Saharanpur Road Dehradun through its Manager …… Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Gyaneshwar Prasad S/o late Sh. Rameshwar Prasad R/o Najibabad Road, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal …… Respondent / Complainant Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 02/09/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, assails the legality and propriety of impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2010; Sh. Gyaneshwar Prasad Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite party (insurance company) was directed to pay the insured sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the respondent – complainant within a period of two months’, failing which the respondent was also held entitled to interest @6% p.a. on the above amount from the date of impugned judgment and order till payment. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent towards mental agony and litigation expenses.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the truck bearing registration No. MP-13-E-8418 was insured with the appellant for the period from 31.03.2006 to 30.03.2007 at an IDV of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The insured truck was being operated by Garhwal Truck Operators Association, Kotdwar. On 15.03.2007, the insured truck was sent to Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited, Kotdwar for loading of bars and the same were to be transported to M/s Sidhbali Steels, Narayana, Delhi. The goods transported in the vehicle were worth Rs. 2,55,191/-. However, the truck did not reach the destination place. The complainant inquired about the truck as well as the driver and conductor thereof as well as goods being transported in the truck, but to no avail. The F.I.R. was lodged with the P.S. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad on 07.04.2007 and intimation was also given to the insurance company. The claim was not paid by the insurance company. Thus, on account of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading therein that on receipt of intimation of occurrence, Sh. R.C. Singh was appointed as investigator. On the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant, case was registered under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the consumer complaint. The investigation is still continuing and there is no deficiency in service on their part, as the claim has rightly been repudiated on account of non-compliance of required formalities.

4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2015, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle in question (truck) bearing registration No. MP-13-E-8418. It is also admitted that the said truck was insured with the appellant under Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle (Open) Policy & Package for the period from 31.03.