STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 26.11.2024 Reserved on : 10.11.2025 Date of Decision : 27.11.2025 United India Insurance Company Limited, above Bank of Baroda, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla through its Branch Manager, having its Regional Office at United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.

….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Amarjit Singh aged about 47 years son of Lal Singh, resident of Village Sikanderpura, PS Sandaur, Tehsil and District Malerkotla.

….…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malerkotla in CC No.23 of 2023.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate (through VC)

For the respondent : Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present Appeal before this Commission to challenge the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malerkotla (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had got insured his Truck Trolla No.PB-13E- 7628 with the OP for an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. The OP had issued policy No.2019043121P100846382 which was valid w.e.f. 22.04.2021 to 21.04.2022. The Complainant had paid premium of Rs.55,200/-. However, the OP had not supplied the terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant was plying the truck for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. He had engaged Mr.Kuldeep Singh as driver of the said truck. It was averred that the Complainant had parked his truck on 28.02.2022 at about 8/9 pm, at New Grain Market, Malerkotla. The truck was locked at that time. In the morning of 01.03.2022 when he came to grain market, he was shocked that his truck was not found in the parking area where it was parked. He tried to locate his truck but it could not be traced.

Thereafter, he had visited PS City-1, Malerkotla and had got registered complaint against unknown person. An intimation with regard to theft was sent to the OP. The OP had appointed investigator. The Complainant had submitted all the requisite documents as required by the investigator. The investigator had concluded that it was a case of genuine theft.

4. It was mentioned in the Complaint that the police had lodged an FIR No.78 dated 17.03.2022 under Section 379 IPC against unknown person as the police could not trace the vehicle. Thereafter, the Complainant had approached the OP many times but they asked him to supply the documents which were not relevant to settle the claim. The OP had demanded untraceable report, final cancellation report with regard to the FIR. Said documents were supplied by the Complainant. After submission of said documents, OP had asked him to explain the reason for delay in intimation to the police. The Complainant had submitted the reply to the same. Despite that the OP had not decided the claim and had repudiated the same vide letter dated 28.04.2023. The claim was repudiated on the frivolous ground of late intimation to the police authorities. Therefore, it was stated to be a case of ‘deficiency in service and ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of OPs. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with