UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HUSSAIN HAIDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 09.09.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.647 of 2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant insured his shop of tyre in the name of M/s. Khan Tyre Store at Naveen Mandi, Ahmat Distt. Sultanpur Uttar Pradesh for Rs.12,00,000/- with the petitioner and the petitioner issued shopkeepers Insurance Policy for the period from 25.09.2009 to 24.09.2010. On 05.01.2010 at about 8.00 p.m. the respondent/complainant as usual after closing the shop by locking both the locks of the shutter went to his house. On the next day i.e. on 6.1.2010 at about 7.00 am Pawan Kumar S/o Sakim Ram informed the respondent/complainant on mobile phone that locks of the shop of the respondent/complainant is cut and is lying outside. Respondent/complainant rushed to his shop and saw that the shutter is closed and two locks are lying cut. The respondent/complainant on opening the shutter found that all 96 tires lying in the shop valuing approximately rupees 11.00 lacs are missing. Some unknown thieves after cutting the lock of the shop in the night have stolen all the tyres. The respondent went to the police station on the same day but the Munsi took his application but did not register the F.I.R. On 07.01.2010, the respondent/complainant sent the information to the Superintendent of Police Sultanpur by registered post dated 07.01.2010. On 11.01.2010, the respondent filed a case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.16, Sultanpur for registration and investigation of the case. After registration of the case being crime No.187/2010 under Section 380 IPC the investigation was initiated by the police. The investigation officer due to non traceability of property and the culprit, submitted his final report on 01.06.2010. On 21.01.2010, the respondent/complainant intimated the petitioners about the theft in the shop. The petitioner after receiving the intimation about the theft in the shop of the respondent appointed Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Chartered Accountant for survey and assessment of the loss. On 17.09.2010, the surveyor submitted his report dated 17.09.2010 and assessed the loss of Rs.5,07,520/-. Since the genuineness of occurrence of the theft was doubtful the petitioner appointed M/s. Salahuddin & Associates, investigator who submitted his investigation report dated 20.2.2011. On 19.04.2011, after receiving the survey report and the investigation report, the petitioner vide by letter dated 19.04.2011 repudiated the claim of the respondent. The respondent filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Sultanpur being Consumer Complaint No.139 of 2011 claiming compensation of Rs.10,82,900/- along with interest and compensation for mental agony. On 16.11.2012, the District Forum, directed the petitioner to reconsider the case of the respondent and dispose of the same. On 12.12.2012, the petitioner by letter dated 12.12.2012 informed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sultanpur that the petitioner company re-examined their decision of repudiation of the claim and after re-examination the fact again came to light that the incident of theft is not genuine and the claim is not payable. On 16.01.2013, the respondent/complainant filed complaint dated 16.01.2003 before the District Forum, Sultanpur being Consumer Complaint No.20/2013 claiming total amount of compensation of Rs.10.82,900/- along with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental, physical and economic pain. The petitioner filed written statement stating that the respondent/complainant has given intimation to the petitioner after 14 days which is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy and further that in the area of 110.44 sq. feet in the shop, keeping 96 nos. of big motor tyres volumetrically was not possible. On 28.02.2014, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,82,900/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint No.139 of 2011 within one month, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. On 25.03.2014, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dated 28.02.2014 filed an appeal before the State Commission, being First Appeal No.647 of 2014. The State Commission vide its order dated 09.09.2015 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

(3.) Hence the present revision petition.