DAYA SAGAR SAHU Vs. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Daya Sagar Sahu instituted this complaint with the allegation that he had purchased a Diesel Tempo with registration number U. T. P.-8938 on October 5, 1981 from Speed House, Jhansi for a sum of Rs.41,982.24 after obtaining a loan from the State Bank of India, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Branch, Jhansi. He got it insured with the respondent Insurance Co. under a 'first party' insurance policy for which he was paying an annual premium of Rs.678/-. He was regularly paying the annual premium and he had a valid policy on May 27, 1985 when the Tempo was stolen. His efforts to get an FIR lodged at Police Station, Kotwali failed. He made a report about the incident by sending a telegram to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. Ultimately with great efforts and with the assistance of the then Manager of the Bank the report about the theft was recorded at Police Station Kotwali, Jhansi on April 8,1988.

(2.) The complainant says that the Police connived with those who had stolen the Tempo and had arrested him falsely u/sec.151 Cr. P. C. After his report was recorded in April 1988 u/ Sec.380 I. P. C. the persons named as accused in it were arrested and a charge-sheet submitted in the Court of the C. J. M. , Jhansi and was pending there. The complainant says further that on April 12,1988 a copy of the report was sent to the Insurance Company and claim made in respect of the loss sustained by him. On it, an inquiry was made by the Insurance Company which included a statement of the complainant recorded by the Inquiry Officer. All formalities were over in the year 1990 but neither was any amount paid to the complainant as compensation nor any communication sent to him by the Insurance Company. On January 13, 1992 the complainant met the Officer of the Insurance Company and inquired about the fate of his claim. He was not given any details except for being told curtly that the company was not responsible for compensating him for the theft of the Tempo. As such, he had to file the present complaint. In paragraphs 16 to 19 the complainant was detailed the various heads under which he was claiming compensation and the basis thereof. The compensation which has eventually been claimed is for a sum of Rs.3,68,600/- along with interest and a sum of Rs.200/- per day by way of further compensation for the period for which the amount remains unpaid.

(3.) A written statement has been filed by the complainant. By way of preliminary objection it has been asserted that the claim was barred by time. In reply to the various paragraphs of the complaint, while denying the allegations about deficiency of service, it has been further said that the case relating to the alleged theft was pending in Court and it was not possible, till it was decided to take the view that the Tempo had been actually stolen. It has also been said in paragraph 10 of the written statement that since the complainant was unable to run the Tempo himself, he had sold it away and could not claim any compensation for the alleged theft. In paragraph 17 it has been reiterated that the complainant had sold the Tempo to one Anand Mohan on 13th June, 1984 and was himself not the owner of the Tempo on the date of the alleged theft. Since there was dispute interse the complainant and the others who had been named as persons who had stolen the Tempo, which was pending as Case No.6519 of 1988 (State V/s. Manjoor Ahamad and Others), it was not feasible to go into the matter under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .