AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and the learned Counsel for the complainant. The appellant is aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar for directing him for payment of Rs. 8,104/- to the complainant, being the cost of his motor cycle which was admittedly stolen on 16.10.1993. The letter of the complainant dated 22.3.1994 addressed to the Consultant-Investigator of the Insurance Company shows that he informed them that his motor cycle had been traced out and it had come to his possession. Subsequently, he wrote a letter to the Insurance Company claiming Rs. 8,104/- as the cost of repair of the motor cycle for payment to him. Since the Insurance Company did not oblige, he filed the case before the District Forum and the District Forum accordingly directed the same as indicated above.
WE have gone through the impugned order as well as the documents on record. Letter dated 22.3.1994 of the complainant clearly shows that he got possession of the vehicle on that date. In that letter there is not a sylable mentioned about the damage caused to the vehicle at the time of taking possession. Surprisingly, long three months thereafter he submitted an estimate dated 8.6.1994 for an amount of Rs. 8,104/- and the Court being satisfied with that letter allowed his claim as indicated above. WE find that there is gross error of record committed by the Forum below. No doubt in the letter dated 2nd April, 1994 the complainant mentioned to the Divisional Manager that his motor cycle received in a broken condition. But surprisingly in the earlier letter dated 22.3.1994 there was nothing about the complainant having received the motor cycle in the broken condition, which he received. The vehicle if was at all traced out in a broken condition, he could have certainly mentioned such an important fact to the Insurance Company. Therefore, his assertion on the letter dated 2nd April, 1994 that received the motor cycle in a broken condition and the subsequent estimate dated 8.6.1994 seems to be an after-thought which we are not prepared to believe. Accordingly, we hold that the claim is not maintainable and we allow this appeal but without any cost. The lower Court judgment is set aside. Copy of the order be given. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal allowed.