1. THE Revision Petitioner, Jagdish Chandra Ahuja, had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun on 11.1.2001 against non settlement of his insurance claim by the Respondent/New India Assurance Co. THE claim was in relation to the theft of his Swaraj Mazada truck, which had reportedly taken place way back on 12.1.1992.
2. THE case of the Complainant, before the District Forum, was that there was no delay on his part. He had filed the insurance claim in time. THE cause of action had continued as the claim was never repudiated by the Respondent/OP. He also claimed that the OP had agreed to settle his claim, after the criminal proceedings were concluded.
The District Forum came to a conclusion that the complaint was filed 9 years after the claim before the OP/Insurance Co. and was therefore, time barred. As for the claim of theft itself, the Police report said that it had actually been sold by the complainant himself, and not stolen. Accordingly, criminal proceedings were initiated against the Complainant U/S 182 before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun in1995. In 1999 he was acquitted for want of evidence. The District Forum therefore held that the fact of theft was not proved. The complaint was rejected.
His appeal against the above order, was dismissed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 10.06.2010. The Complainant is now before this Commission in a Revision Petition challenging the order of the State Commission and with a prayer to set aside the same. We have perused the records of the case and heard the RP/Complainant.
3. THE Revision Petitioner argues that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that no theft has taken place, as the Respondent/OP has not rebutted theft of vehicle in their objection or written statement. This is a very strange argument as the case of the Respondent is in fact, based on the Police investigation report and subsequent criminal proceedings against the Complainant. THE District Forum as well as the State Commission both have held that acquittal of the RP/Complainant was on account of non-production of evidence against him. It does not prove that the theft of the vehicle has actually taken place. THE order of the criminal court giving possession of the vehicle to one Naim s/o Nizam, was challenged by the RP/Complainant, before the High Court of Allahabad. THE High Court has allowed him interim custody of the vehicle subject to a personal bond of ` 1 lac and an undertaking that the vehicle shall be produced as and when required by the Court. In this background, the State Commission has observed that: THEse facts, thus, would indicate that the vehicle having been recovered, the question of awarding any compensation by the insurance company on the allegations of the complainant that it had been stolen, does not arise.
We are completely in agreement with the above conclusion of the State Commission. In the result, we find no merit in this Revision Petition. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. The parties shall bear their own costs.
