- (1.)this is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.9.2006 of the District Forum, Guna passed in C. C. No.281/2006, whereby the application seeking direction for payment of Rs.2,80,000 as cost of the stolen vehicle and Rs.5,000 as damages from the respondent was rejected.
(2.)The case in brief is that in the intervening night of 13.7.2004 and 14.7.2004, vehicle Mahindra Marshal No. UP-93 G-3079 belonging to the appellant was stolen away about which a formal FIR was lodged in the police station. She informed the respondent Insurance Company about it. The latter sent for the report of the Surveyor and asked the appellant to produce F. R. sanctioned by the competent Court. The appellant sought time to do so, but the respondent allegedly closed the claim case for want of F. R. The appellant then filed a complaint on 1.7.2006 before the District Forum, Guna praying that the respondent be directed to pay Rs.2,80,000 as cost of the said vehicle and Rs.5,000 as damages for the mental agony caused. After hearing both the parties and noting that there is no evidence to show that the copy of the FR sanctioned on 1.12.2005 was sent by the complainant to the opposite party or that the claim case has been closed by the opposite party, the complaint was rejected by the District Forum. This appeal is preferred against this order.
(3.)The learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. The learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent Insurance Company is willing to decide the claim case on the basis of market value of the stolen property as indicated in the report of the Surveyor and sought time for the same. He alleged that the appellant despite reminders failed to send the copy of F. R. , which was in fact the reason for claim not being settled so far. He also quoted decision of National Commission dated 16.3.2004 in First Appeal No.7/2003, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Morena V/s. M/s. Samrath Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,2004 2 CPC 148. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the said F. R. had since been filed before the District Forum, the respondent should have decidd the claim of the appellant and that the District Forum had obviously erred in rejecting his application.