Decided on September 08,2010

Naresh Kumar Chadha Appellant


- (1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby Consumer Complaint No. 125/2008 was dismissed on26.2.2009. While dismissing the said complaint, appellant has been burdened with Rs. 5,000 as costs. This amount has been ordered to be paid by him to the respondent within 30 days after receipt of copy of the order by him.
(2.) VEHICLE , a Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. HP -36 -3672 was insured in the sum of Rs. 60,000 with the respondent. This was stolen on 27.4.2006 from Yol Bazar, Dharamshala. Police report was lodged vide Rapat No. 15 on 29.4.2006 at Police Post, Yol. Respondent was also intimated about this theft. It is admitted between the parties that after receipt of the intimation, Surveyor was deputed. Appellant claims that he had provided necessary documents to the Surveyor, but claim was not settled. This resulted in filing of complaint before the District Forum below, seeking directions against the respondent to pay him the sum insured with interest @ 12% per annum along with Rs. 20,000 as compensation, besides cost of Rs. 5,000.
(3.) APPELLANT 's claim was contested by the respondent. Its plea was that he had no insurable interest in the vehicle because he had sold the same as far back as in the year 2004, much before the date of the theft. Vehicle was sold to one Shri Harjinder Singh, as such complaint was not maintainable. Surveyor having been appointed was not disputed. However, the claim could not be processed for want of documents from the appellant. In these circumstances vide registered letter dated 4.12.2007, respondent filed the claim by treating it as "no claim". District Forum had decided the complaint on these pleadings, hence this appeal. Learned Counsel for the parties raised number of pleas while contesting the claim in this appeal. However, we are of the view that we need not go into all the pleas urged in support as well as against the allowing of the appeal. Reason being that no final decision has been taken by the respondent -insurer, meaning thereby that it has yet to come to the conclusion whether appellant is entitled to any claim or not, more especially in the face of its admitted stand that the file has been closed for want of documents being supplied by the appellant as "no claim". This aspect in our opinion should have been gone into by the District Forum below which it failed to take into account. Thus, in our opinion, the Forum below fell into error by deciding the complaint on its merits. Leaving this matter here only, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed by holding that the complaint was pre -mature. Cause of action in our opinion would arise in favour of the appellant when the claim was either repudiated or was settled at a lesser amount than to which appellant felt he was entitled to. None of these situations admittedly arose so as to enable the appellant to maintain the complaint.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.