Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs MAHAVIR SINGH

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 27.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 3623/98-entitled Shri Mahavir Singh v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1/complainant Shri Mahavir Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''respondent'') had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the complainant had obtained an insurance cover for his truck bearing No. DL IL-A 9304 from the appellant for the period from 9.12.1996 to 8.12.1997. It was averred in the complaint by the respondent that on 19.5.1997 the driver of the truck, by name Sh. Bansidhar had taken the truck on the pretext of having the same repaired alongwith an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. It was averred that said Sh. Bansidhar did not come back. THE return of said Sh. Bansidhar was awaited and when said Sh. Bansidhar did not return with the truck, a complaint (FIR) was lodged with the police and the respondent also filed a claim within the appellant as the truck in question was duly insured with the appellant. As the claim of the respondent was not honoured by the appellant the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum praying that the appellant, be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- being the costs of the vehicle alongwith interest and compensation to the extent of Rs. 35,000/-. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was contested by the appellant. The plea taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that as the loss in question was caused to the respondent as a result of ''criminal breach of trust'', alleged to have been committed by the driver of the truck and not as a result of ''theft'', the claim of respondent Mahavir Singh could not be honoured by the appellant. Another plea taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that the respondent Mahavir Singh had lodged report (FIR) with the police after a delay of nine days.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent Mahavir Singh a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- together with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 20.7.1998 i.e. the date of filing the complaint. The appellant has also been directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent Mahavir Singh. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a perusal of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, it is apparent that the findings of the learned District Forum inter alia are based on a decision of the National Commission in case S. Bhagat Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported as II (1991) CPJ 700 (NC). As regards nine days'' delay in lodging the First Information Report with the Police it has been held by the District Forum that since the driver Bansidhar was a regular employee with the respondent, it was normal on the part of said Shri Mahavir Singh to wait for the return of the driver for some days and when said Shri Bansidhar did not return with the truck, the respondent lodged a report with the police. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order passed by the learned District Forum suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with costs. Costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Delhi. Appeal dismissed with costs.