ACHHELAL JAISWAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises out of the order dated 29.1.2004, passed in Complaint No.357/2003 by the District Consumer Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'district Forum' for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts as averred in the complaint are: that the complainant/appellant had purchased a mobile crane (Escort) CG-04-9573 for Rs.5,25,000/- and got the same insured with the opposite party/respondent under Policy No.43031/3103/01441 for the period from 30.5.2003 to 29.5.2004. During subsistence of the said policy the aforesaid crane was stolen on 9.6.2003. It is further averred that the representative of the complainant had informed the Amanaka police station vide written application for lodging the FIR but no FIR was lodged. Thereafter on 25.6.2003 an application was made to the DG, Police to the effect that the police is not lodging FIR regarding theft of mobile crane. Consequently, the Amanaka Police lodged the FIR on 27.6.2003. Thereafter the opposite party insurer was informed and claim form, photo copy of FIR together with other relevant papers were handed over to the insurer. Despite reminders, the insurer did not respond and as such was negligent and deficient in service thereby causing loss to the complainant. Consequently, complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming compensation and damages.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the claim on the ground that the averments regarding theft of crane is totally false and baseless. Lodging of FIR was a mere formality. The police had advised the complainant to present the driver before the police but the driver was never presented. It is further averred by the insurer that information of the alleged theft given to the Insurance Company was highly belated i. e. incident of theft is alleged to have taken place on 9.6.2003 but information was given to Insurance Company on 27.6.2003. RTO also was not informed. The insurer had further averred that police investigation has not yet completed. It is further stated in the reply that mala fide intention of the complaint is evident from the very fact that he has filed the complaint before the insurer could investigate the claim minutely and come to a conclusion whether the insured is entitled to get the claim or not. It is further stated in the written version that the complainant did not co-operate with the investigator appointed by the insurer and also failed to furnish keys of the crane. The complaint is premature. The insurer had prayed for dismissal of complaint and relegating the complainant to Civil Court as the very nature of complaint is such that it deserves detailed trial and cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction.