Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 256 of  1999

Rakesh Kumar Saxena s/o Late S.G. Saxena,

27, B.N. Road, Lalbagh, Lucknow.                     …Appellant.                                                                         

1- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hazatganj,

    Branch Office near Basant Cinema through

    Branch Manager.

2- Divisional Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

     Balmiki Marg, Lucknow.                      ….…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri M.H. Khan, Advocate for appellant.

Sri Vasdeo Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.

Date  1.4.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the District Forum-II, Lucknow in complaint case no.351 of 1992.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the complainant R.K. Saxena was the owner of Mahindra Jeep no.UHD 4243 which was insured on 16.2.1989. Unfortunately the said vehicle was parked within the residential compound of his house at 27, B.N. Road, Lucknow and in the night of 19.9.1989 the said vehicle was stolen. He searched the vehicle and then lodged FIR on 17.9.1989 but the vehicle was not traced out. The complainant intimated the opposite party and submitted his claim but the opposite party did not settle the claim. Then a complaint case has been filed in which the opposite parties have filed written statement.

(2)

The Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment is against law, against evidence on record and liable to be set aside. The claim of the complainant was repudiated due to non-cooperation with the investigating officer as mentioned by the opposite parties. The vehicle was physically examined by the agent at the time of insurance. It is wrong to say that the vehicle was not in existence at the time of insurance. The impugned judgment is passed on conjectures and surmises and liable to be set aside.

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri M.H. Khan and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Vasudeo Mishra and perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record. 

          We have seen the judgment of the ld. Forum. The ld. Forum has stated that the opposite party has said in the written statement that the said vehicle was stolen before 16.9.1989 and the insurance was done on 16.9.1989 showing theft of the jeep. The ld. Forum held that the insurance was done in the night of theft, so it makes it doubtful.

          The insurance policy has been issued on 16.9.1989 as per cover note of the insurance policy. Now one question arises that if there is insurance on 16.9.1989 how can the opposite party deny that it is not genuine. It is a case under the Consumer Protection Act and not under the Indian Penal Code.

In this case final report has already been accepted. No action has been taken against the insurance agent or no FIR has been lodged against the complainant for fraud or cheating. If there is policy, the insurance company shall be

(3)

liable to pay amount of the policy. The jeep was parked in the residential campus, so it can not be said that it has been left in the open area. So, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Distr