UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRAMOD DHARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 82 of 2013. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex -parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant - opposite party and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle No. UP11 -T -2271 (Tata Indica). The said vehicle was being used by the complainant for commercial purpose as a taxi. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party - United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 14.03.2011 to 13.03.2012 at an IDV of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. It was alleged that during the currency of the insurance policy, in the morning of 22.11.2011 at 4:00 a.m., the driver of the complainant Sh. Anees alias Kalu S/o. Sh. Waheed, R/o. Mohalla Sati, Emli Road, Roorkee took the insured vehicle to Muzaffarnagar for dropping four passengers, who boarded the insured vehicle at Bus Station, Roorkee. It was also alleged that during the way, the said passengers looted the insured vehicle from the driver on gun point and took the insured vehicle towards Deoband side. An FIR was lodged with the P.S. Kotwali, Deoband against unknown persons and a case was registered bearing Case Crime No. 128 of 2012. It was further alleged that inspite of efforts by the police, neither the accused could be arrested, nor the insured vehicle could be recovered. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for indemnification of the loss, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 21.01.2013. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

(2.) The District Forum issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 09.09.2013 proceeded the consumer complaint ex -parte against the appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 27.01.2014 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex -parte against the appellant. The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.