Judgment:
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
Petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, Act) against order dated 28.09.2006, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for short, State Commission). 2. Brief facts are that petitioner is registered owner of Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No.OR-BBA-1941. The said vehicle was insured with the respondents/o.ps. for Rs.2,91,000/- valid from 15.8.2000 to14.8.2001. The said vehicle was stolen and F.I.R. was lodged with the Police. It is further stated that despite of all efforts by the Police, vehicle could not be traced. Ultimately on 14.12.2001, final report was submitted by the Police stating therein that there is no clue of the vehicle. Thereafter, claim was made with the respondents by the petitioner. However, it was not settled despite correspondence by the petitioner. It is also stated that respondents wrote letter dated 11.6.2002 stating therein, that they wanted some more documents, which do not exist in the eyes of law at all. Thereafter, petitioner filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir (for shot, District Forum) seeking sum of Rs.3,58,000/- towards the price of the vehicle and compensation with interest @ 18% P.A. from 24.12.2000.
3. Respondents in their written statement admitted the facts of the case. However, it is stated that petitioner has not submitted the certified copies of the required documents and he only filed the Xerox copies of these documents for settlement of claim due to which claim could not be settled.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 5.1.2004 allowed the complaint and directed respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,000/- alongwith interest from 20.3.2002, till payment.
5. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same. It set aside the order of the District Forum and consequently, dismissed the complaint.
6. Hence, this revision.7. Respondents have filed written reply to the present revision petition.8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that vehicle in question was stolen in the year 2000 which was insured with the respondents. Thus, petitioner suffered irreparable loss for number of years as he was deprived of the use of the vehicle for all these years. The mere fact that stolen vehicle has been recovered will not mean that, respondents can escape from its liability for the period for which the petitioner was deprived of the use of his insured vehicle.
10. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for respondents, that after passing of the order by the District Forum, stolen vehicle was recovered and intimation to this effect was given to the petitioner. Petitioner being owner of the vehicle was requested to take possession of the vehicle from Police Station. Instead of taking possession of the vehicle, petitioner filed Execution Petition before the District Forum, seeking execution of the judgment. Since, stolen vehicle had been recovered, there was no occasion for petitioner to seek compensation of the alleged loss. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.
11. It is an admitted fact that petitioners vehicle was insured with the respondents which was stolen in the year 2000. As per respondents case, the vehicle was recovered only in the year 2004, it has nowhere been explained by the respondents as to why claim of the petitioner was not settled till 2004, i.e. for about four years. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the loss suffered by the petitioner due to non-availability of the vehicle for use, was in the nature of a direct consequential loss resulting from the theft of the vehicle. Thus, deficiency on the part of the respondents is writ large. 12. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore order dated 5.1.2004, passed by the District Forum.
13. Present Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
14. No order as to cost.