UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SHEEL CHAND JAIN

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1093 of 2005 United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheel Chand Jain by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got his Mahindra Jeep MP 15A 1603 insured with OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 22.1.2003 to 21.1.2004. On 15.8.2003, complainant''s driver left jeep in garage at 5.30 p.m. and went away after handing over keys to the complainant. On 16.8.2004, when driver opened garage, jeep was not found. Complainant lodged report to the Police Station and also intimated to OP. Complainant submitted claim to the OP, which was repudiated on the basis that FR was submitted by Police expressing doubt as to the commission of theft. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per investigation carried out by Police and investigator appointed by OP theft was suspicious, so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with 6% p.a. interest and cost of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

None appeared for respondent since last two dates.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of suspicion regarding theft of vehicle, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

Perusal of record reveals that complainant lodged report with the Police on the next day and intimation was also given to OP in time. Perusal of record further reveals that Police authorities submitted final report to the concerned Magistrate in which it was observed that complainant left keys in the jeep in the garage. Investigating officer was not allowed to question suspicious Ansar Khan and it appears that complainant himself hidden the jeep with the help of Ansar Khan to claim insurance amount. Investigator appointed by OP observed as under: "Important facts:

During the Police Investigation, theft of the jeep no. MP 15A-1605 was not found and thus the case was closed and it is proposed to register a case against the complainant for filing a false complaint.

The locks of the shutter were not found broken of the garage wherein the theft of the jeep has been said to have occurred.

According to the jeep owner Sheel Chand the shutter was found closed in the morning and he got to know about the theft after opening the shutter. In fact the robber would not lock the shutter after robbery of the jeep.

During the investigation the jeep owner was not having the keys of the jeep.

Conclusion:

After the investigation, I have concluded that the complaint of theft of the jeep no. MP 15A 1605 filed by the insured Shri Sheel Chand Jain S/o Shri Deepchand Jain R/o Rajakhedi, Tehsil & Distt. Sagar was not found to be true and a false report of theft was done at the Padmakar Chowki, P.S. Kent.

Report is hereby submitted."

As final report was submitted by Police authorities and observed that jeep was not stolen and as investigator also found that locks of the shutter of the garage were not found broken and complainant was not having keys of the jeep, theft becomes suspicious. Once theft becomes suspicious, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal while observing that theft of vehicle could not be denied whereas theft of vehicle was under suspicion. In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1093 of 2005 United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheel Chand Jain and order of District Forum dated 23.2.2005 in Complaint No. 116/2004 Sheelchand Jain Vs. Branch Manager, United India. Ins Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to approach civil court for appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs.