S BHAGAT SINGH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh by which the said Commission accepted the appeal filed by the present respondent, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun and dismissed the complaint filed by the present revision -petitioner, Bhagat Singh. The District Forum had ordered the Insurance Company to pay to the revision -petitioner, who was complainant before it, Rs. 84, (Zero)/ -by 31st July, 1990. It was further ordered that in case, the Insurance Company failed to pay the said amount by the due date, the said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st August, 1990 till the date of payment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint before the District forum, the complainant was the owner of taxi -car bearing registration No. UMT -75 °8. The said taxi used to ply between Dehradun and Delhi. The complainant had kept a paid driver named Bhupen Chandra Rana to ply that taxi. The said taxi was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and the current policy was valid from 20th June,. 1988 to 19th June, 1989. On 22nd January, 1989 the said taxi left Dahradun for Delhi with passengers. At Delhi, the taxi was parked at the Taxi stand, in Kamla Market and remained there till 25th January, 1989 as per records of that Taxi Stand. On the night intervening 25th and 26th Januaary, 1989, the said taxi was hired by some passengers and left the Taxi -Stand. After that the whereabouts of the taxi and the driver are not known. When the taxi did not reach back Dehardun the complainant made enquiries about it and when he could not trace it, he lodged a report with the Kamla Market Police Station, Delhi on 4th February, 1989. The police could not trace the driver or the taxi and issued a final untraced report on 3rd August, 1989. In the meantime, the complainant informed the respondent Insurance Company on 6th February, 1989 about the loss of the taxi. On receipt of the final report issued by the police, the complainant sent it to the respondent. One Shri U.K. Mehta, an officer from the Delhi office of the Insurance Company (respondents also made necessary investigations which were completed some four months prior to the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the complainant. However, the Insurance Company, on one pretext or the other did not indemnify the complainant in respect of the loss of the Taxi. Finally the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 80,000/ - for which sum the taxi -car was insured with the respondent plus interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

(3.) FORM the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the/acts of the case are not much in dispute. The respondent Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that the taxi -car in question was insured with them for Rs. 80,000/ - and the policy was in force at the relevant time. It is also not the case of the respondent that the taxi -car was not worth that amount at the time it was not inside. it is also not disputed that the said taxi -car left Taxi Stand Kamla Market on the night intervening 25th and 26th January , 1989, with passengers. As noticed earlier the case had been investigated also by Shri Mehta, an officer from the Delhi Office of the respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, the only questions to be considered are : (i) Whether the loss of the taxi -car in the circumstances narrated above is covered by the policy in question, and (ii) Whether this commission has jurisdiction to decide the present dispute. We will take the two points in seriatim.