NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 26. 9. 2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 17. 12. 2004 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party to pay amount of Rs. 1,90,000 with interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) MARUTI car bearing registration No. PB-27-A 0489 owned by respondent was comprehensively insured with the petitioner/insurance Company for the period from 26. 12. 2001 to 25. 12. 2002. Car was allegedly stolen on 19. 1. 2002 around 4. 00 a. m. from a place situated at a distance of 1 kilometres from Lalru while coming from Ambala to Chandigarh. In regard to the occurrence FIR No. 19 dated 19. 1. 2002, under Section 379, IPC was lodged by the son of respondent at P. S. Lalru. Despite best efforts made by police, the car could not be traced. On claim made by respondent being repudiated by petitioners, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the Insurance Company. Complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Forum. Appeal filed against District Forum's order by the respondent was accepted by State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) CONTENTION advanced by Mrs. Archana Khosla for petitioner is mainly two fold, (1) there was inconsistency in the statements of Rahul on the basis whereof FIR was recorded and that of Smt. Lajwanti as recorded by the investigator, (ii) Rahul, son of Smt. Lajwanti did not want the investigation to continue and accordingly case was closed as untraced taking note of his statement by the Court concerned. In support of latter submission, our attention was drawn to the order of District Forum at pages 59-60. As may be seen from said FIR, after the tyre of car punctured at around 4 a. m. , Rahul parked the car on left side of the road and went to Lalru in search of a mechanic but he could not find any mechanic, on coming back to spot he noticed that the car had been stolen. In her statement recorded by the investigator Smt. Lajwanti stated that after Rahul had changed the wheel and was about to close the rear side of car, two people caught hold of him and after snatching the key fled away with the car towards Chandigarh. To be only noticed that Smt. Lajwanti was not the occupant of car nor an eye-witness to the occurrence. So, much importance cannot be attached to her statement as regards manner in which the car was stolen. Inconsistency between the two statements does not create any doubt as regards car having been stolen. Further, untraced report dated 10. 1. 2003 referred to in the order of District Forum notices the statement of Rahul that he is satisfied with the investigation made by police and does not want to proceed with the case further. In view of this statement the case was closed as untraced by the Magistrate concerned. This statement cannot lead to the conclusion that theft of car was doubtful. Order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.