LAWS(NCD)-2017-9-101

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Vs. BINOD KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI PRAKASH KUMAR SINGH VILLAGE & PO TEENTARA

Decided On September 13, 2017
National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. Appellant
V/S
Binod Kumar Singh Son Of Shri Prakash Kumar Singh Village And Po Teentara Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.02.2015, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 137/2014, "S.D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Binod Kumar Singh", vide which, the said appeal filed against the order dated 22.05.2014 , passed by the District Forum Koderma in consumer complaint No. 2/2012, filed by the present respondent/complainant, allowing the said complaint, was dismissed on grounds of limitation as well as on merits.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent/complainant Binod Kumar Singh is the owner of a commercial vehicle bearing No. JH12C 3425, which was insured with the Opposite Party (OP) Insurance Company. The said vehicle loaded with goods is reported to have been stolen on 20.07.2010. An FIR No. 94/10 under section 379 IPC was registered with the local Police. The complainant filed claim with the OP Insurance Company for payment of 13,91,513/-. However, the Insurance Company issued a cheque for 10,42,130/- on 2.11.2011 drawn on HDFC Bank in the name of Bank of India, Koderma Branch, which had financed the vehicle in question. The Insurance Company made deduction of 25% from the claim amount, saying that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, as he had failed to carry the keys of the vehicle with him when he went outside to relieve himself. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking payment of balance amount of 3,49,383/- from the OP Insurance Company, along with 20,000/- as compensation against mental harassment and 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the driver of the vehicle was responsible for the theft, as he forgot to carry the keys with him, when he went to relieve himself.