ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 558 of 2016
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional, 2nd Floor, 4 Marry Gold, Shahnajaf Road,
Sapru Marg, Lucknow through its Assistant
General Manager. ...Appellant.
Versus
Ramesh Singh s/o Pattu Singh, R/o Village, Lalpur
(Kaithawa), P.S. Bella, District Auriya. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri T.K. Mishra, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
Date 13.12.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Auraiya in complaint case no.112 of 2015, Ramesh Singh vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & anr., whereby the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay insured amount of Rs.3,10,000.00 due to theft of the insured vehicle (tractor) alongwith interest @ 7% p.a.
This judgment has been challenged on the ground that the ld. District Forum never considered the conditions of the policy which provides issuance of notice to the insurance company after the theft of the insured vehicle and registration of FIR immediately.
Heard ld. counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.
Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that FIR was lodged after 115 days after the incident and intimation was given to the appellant after 186 days. There is complete violation of the condition of the policy, therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant.
(2)
Ld. District Forum concluded that the complainant tries to lodge the FIR on very same day of the incident of theft but concerned PS was reluctant in lodging FIR then complainant informed the SSP and lastly, filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Magistrate whereby the ld. court of ACJM directed for registration of FIR. Therefore, in this case delay lodging of FIR is well explained and there is no occasion to interfere in the findings given by the ld. District Forum.
Ld. counsel for the appellant further argued that insurer was negligent. He left the tractor trolley unattended at 1 a.m. in the night on the date of incident. Therefore, there must by 25% deduction of the total insured amount. This fact is established that the insurer left the tractor unattended negligently, therefore, deduction of 25% in the insured amount is proper. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed upto this extent.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is amended upto this extent that insurer will get the insured amount after deduction of 25% of the insured amount. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafr, PA I
Court 2
