PRABHAT KHANNA (DECEASED) THR. LRS., & ORS. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.08.2008, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in two appeals, Appeal No. 335/1998, "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Alka Khanna & Ors." and Appeal No. 334/1998 "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gopesh Khanna" vide which, while allowing the two appeals, the orders dated 08.01.1998, passed by the District Forum, Allahabad in consumer complaint No. 1282/1995, filed by the petitioner/complainant Prabhat Khanna (deceased) represented by his LRs and consumer complaint No. 1283/1995, filed by the other petitioner/complainant Gopesh Khanna, allowing the said complaints, were set aside and the two complaints were ordered to be dismissed.

The facts of the case in brief are that the complainants Prabhat Khanna and his elder brother Gopesh Khanna are sole proprietors of Saree Shops and had obtained Insurance Policy from the OP Insurance Company known as "Loss of Cash in Transit" policies, according to which, any loss of theft during travel from shop to bank or vice-versa, up to a maximum amount of 1 lakh was to be compensated by the Insurance Company. The version of the complainants is that on 16.03.1995, both the brothers/insured were going in Maruti Car No. UVA3909 to their house with cash of 60,000/- with Prabhat Khanna and 58,000/- with Gopesh Khanna, total being 1,18,000/-, when they were looted by two motorcycle-borne miscreants at pistol point. An FIR about the incident was lodged with the Police the same evening. As per the complainants, they had gone to inform the insurance company on 20.03.95, but the concerned official refused to accept the same, because a copy of the policy and its other details were not enclosed. The complainants tried to contact the concerned insurance agent to obtain the said details, but the said agent was reported to be on leave, being sick. The details were thereafter acknowledged by the OP Insurance Company, vide their letter dated 07.06.95, and they appointed Mr. U.K. Mishra as surveyor. The requisite documents were supplied to the surveyor, but the OP Insurance Company failed to make payment of the claim to them. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 05.10.1995, in response to which the OP denied that any amount was looted by the miscreants. The consumer complaints in question were then filed before the District Forum. In CC No. 1282/1995 filed by Prabhat Khanna, a direction was sought to the OP for payment of 73,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of claim till realisation. In the other complaint No. 1283/1995, filed by Gopesh Khanna, a sum of 71,000/- was directed to be paid alongwith interest @12% p.a.

After the filing of the complaints, Prabhat Khanna died and his legal representatives, Alka Khanna wife, Rubi Khanna daughter and Khushboo Khanna daughter, were substituted as his legal representatives.

The OP took the stand that intimation about the incident had been given to them quite late and hence, the claim was not admissible and the surveyor appointed by the insurance company had also not recommended payment of the claim.

The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the two complaints and awarded a sum of 60,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from 15.10.1995 in the complaint of Prabhat Khanna and a sum of 58,000/- in the second complaint, filed by Gopesh Khanna.

Being aggrieved against the said order, the insurance company challenged the same by way of two appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been allowed vide impugned order, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

The complainants were represented by an Advocate who made his last appearance before this Commission on 16.09.2015, but thereafter he did not appear on the subsequent dates of hearing, i.e., 10.03.2016, 01.08.2016 and 15.11.2016. The petition is, therefore, being decided after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents only.

At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent insurance company stated that since two appeals had been heard by the State Commission, filed in two different complaints, the petitioners should have filed two revision petitions before this Commission, rather than filing a joint petition. The petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, the Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the report of the surveyor, which brings out that the incident was reported to the Insurance Company after a gap of about one month, for which no reasonable explanation had been given. The surveyor has brought out that the complainants were not able to provide any evidence for the alleged amount in their possession at the time of the incident. They had not produced any stock-register or evidence to prove the sale made on that day. The petition, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The report made by the Surveyor U.K. Mishra is a material document to be taken into consideration for deciding the case in question. In his detailed report, the said surveyor brought out that, "the exact amount of cash loss in the looting incident is unascertainable on the basis of documentary evidence so far produced before me." It has been brought out in the order of the State Commission as well that no evidence for daily sale or sales receipts or stock ledger book had been produced on behalf of the complainants from where, it could be found out that the complainants were carrying the amounts mentioned in the complaint at the time of travel from shop to the house.

Further, it is also clear from the facts of the case that intimation about the incident was given to the insurance company after about one month. The version of the complainant is that he gave intimation to them on the very next day, but the same was not acknowledged, because the particulars of the policy had not been given alongwith the intimation. This version of the complainants has not been proved from record anywhere that they made any attempt to give intimation to the insurance company immediately after the incident.

Based on the foregoing discussion, there does not seem to be any justification to make any change in the impugned order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. There is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, being devoid of any force. There shall be no order as to costs.