Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member. filed the present appeal against the order dated passed by

Transcription

1 2 nd Additional Bench STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No of 2011 Date of institution: Date of Decision : New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly Authorised Officer...Appellant/OP No. 2 Versus 1. Shri Brahm Kumar son of Shri Jagat Ram, resident of Village Karimpur Chahwala, Tehsil Nawanshehar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar...Respondent No.1/complainant 2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Village Pojewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, through its Branch Manager. Respondent No.2/OP No.1 Quorum:- Argued By:- First Appeal against the order dated passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member For the appellant : Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sarju Puri, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for Sh. Sandeep Jain, Advocate. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/op No.2(hereinafter called OP No.2 ) has filed the present appeal against the order dated passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat

2 FIRST APPEAL NO OF Singh Nagar(hereinafter called the District Forum ) in consumer complaint No. 41 of The complainant-shri Brahm Kumar(hereinafter called the complainant ) has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the C.P. Act ) on the allegations that he obtained loan of Rs. 1 lac from OP No. 1 for running his business of Bee Farming and Honey Bee frames, wooden bee hives with stand were insured with OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 issued cover note No towards the loss on account of theft and fire from to However, during the night of , 40 Beehive boxes with frames and stand were stolen from village Singhpur, Tehsil Balachaur by some unknown person. Complainant filed the complaint with the Police, who directed to investigate this case with FIR No. 22 dated P.S. Pojewal. The complainant informed regarding the loss to OP No. 2 alongwith all the documents. The complainant despite repeated requests and enquires was not given any satisfactory reply by OP No. 2 and the officials had been delaying the passing of the claim on one pretext or the other. The complainant had earlier filed the complaint but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. When the complainant came to know that the claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the boxes had been moved from the place where they are kept earlier mentioned in the insurance cover note. However, the complainant had undergone the course of Bee Keeping and as per manual the Bee boxes after 2-3 months boxes have to be shifted and moved in order to get the maximum

3 FIRST APPEAL NO OF honey output. However, his claim has been wrongly repudiated by OP No. 2, therefore, OP No. 2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac on account of theft of articles referred above and sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony and suffering alongwith costs of litigation. 3. The complaint was contested by opposite party No. 1 and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as another complaint filed by the complainant on the same cause of action was dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant on On merits, it has been submitted that as per the complaint, theft took place on but FIR No. 22 dated was registered, which is not humanly possible. It had further been stated that no permission was granted by the learned District Forum to file a fresh complaint. Allegations in the complaint are false, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Opposite party No. 2 in his written statement taking preliminary objections that the theft took place beyond the period not covered under the insurance cover; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action as the complainant has failed to provide necessary information to the Surveyor and the claim of the complainant was repudiated on as there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, it has been stated that FIR No. 22 dated was regard before theft took place is not covered because policy period was to The claim was rightly and legally repudiated as the complainant changed the place of Bee boxes without informing the OP No. 2 and no security measures have been taken to take care of

4 FIRST APPEAL NO OF the Bee boxes, therefore, there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed. 5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence. 6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence Ex. CW-1/A his affidavit, Ex. C-1 copy of report given by SHO PS Pojewal, Ex. C-2 insurance policy, Ex. C-3 statement of Brahm Kumar, Ex. C-4 statement of Kashmiri Lal, Ex. C- 5 site plan, Exs. C-6 & 7 report of SHO, Ex. C-8 statement, Ex. C-9 Certificate, Ex. C-10 theory and Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-20 other documents. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Malkiat singh, Senior Manager, PNB, Pojjewal Branch as Ex. RW-1/A. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Kishan, Sr. Divn. Manager Ex. RW-1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex. R-1, Police report Ex. R-2, non-traceable report Ex. R After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statements, evidence and documents on the record, the learned District Forum in the impugned order observed that the complainant brought on record report by SHO, P.S. Pojewal dated , insurance policy, copy of statement of Kashmiri Lal, site plan, report of SHO, certificate regarding the training in Bee Keeping, theory regarding Bee Keeping, certificate by Bakhsish Kumar, Sarpanch, statement of Ashok Kumar, Sarpanch of village Nanowal, statement of Kashmiri Lal, Member, Gram Panchayat Karimpur, bills dated and , insurance policy, statement of

5 FIRST APPEAL NO OF Jaspal alongith required documents. The complainant had reported the matter to the Police and the Police had given directions that this incident be investigated in FIR No. 22 dated He has further placed on record manual of Bee Keeping Ex. C-10 vide which to get the maximum Honey Bee, Bee Keeping boxes are required to be shifted to get the maximum Honey and ultimately, it was observed that the claim was wrongly repudiated and the complaint was allowed with the direction to OP No. 2 to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which proceedings under Section 27 shall be initiated. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party No. 2 has filed the present appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sh. Sarju Puri, Advocate, written arguments submitted by him and learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sh. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for Sh. Sandeep Jain, Advocate. 10. Appellant in the grounds of appeal has contended that at the time of lodging the complaint, complete documents were not provided. In case theft took place on then FIR No. 22 dated cannot be registered; with these facts, the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence on the record and wrongly allowed the complaint. 11. Firstly with regard to the report of theft and date of FIR, in case we go through the statement of Brahm Kumar, which is Ex. C-8

6 FIRST APPEAL NO OF has referred that Beehive were stolen from Village Singhpur on and it was found that offence under Section 379/411 is made out but it was ordered to investigate this matter with FIR No. 22 dated In case the order has been passed by the SHO with regard to investigate the case with FIR No. 22 dated , it can not be said that FIR was registered before the occurrence. Another point on the basis of which the claim of the complainant was repudiated was that he shifted the place of Bee Keeping. In case we go through the insurance policy placed on record as Ex. C-2, the address of complainant is mentioned as Brahm Kumar s/o Sh. Jagat Ram VPO Karimpur Chahwala and was further mentioned that stocks of all kinds Honey Bee frames and wooden beehives with frames and stands lying in the public premises are insured. It has been alleged that Beehives were shifted to village Singhpur. In case we go through the Policy, it has not been mentioned that Beehives are in Village Karimpur but it has been mentioned in the public premises, therefore, the public premises can be in village Singhpur. Moreover, the complainant has brought on the record the literature with regard to Bee Keeping and after going through this literature, Beehives are required to be shifted from one place to another place and accordingly, being an expert in the Bee Farming, Beehives were shifted at another nearby place, therefore, without any specific stipulation in the insurance policy where the Beehives were to be kept it can be said that the place was shifted by the complainant. Moreover, the counsel for the insurance company has not placed on the record anything that in case Beehives are shifted from one place

7 FIRST APPEAL NO OF to another then the claim of the complainant can be repudiated. Beehives boxes alongwith frames and stand were stolen and its report was given immediately to the Police Authority and it was upto the investigation agency to apprehend the thieves and to recover the property, in case the property of the complainant is insured, the opposite party is required to indemnify the complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings and we do not find any infirmity in the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum and affirm the same. 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. The costs of the appeal is assessed as Rs. 3,000/ The arguments in this appeal were heard on and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 14. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. 15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

8 FIRST APPEAL NO OF The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases. (Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member August 29, as (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member