Allowed

Sanoj Singh And Ors. v. The State Of Jhrkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./2562/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings filed by an insurance company for repudiation of a vehicle claim, holding the matter falls under consumer deficiency of service.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding arising out of Haider Nagar P.S. Case No.24 of 2015 and corresponding G.R. Case No.1125 of 2015 are quashed.

Sanoj Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jhrkhand And Anr. — Consumer Protection | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 2562 of 2015

----

1.Sanoj Singh

2.Md. Salim

3.Shailendra Kumar Gupta @ Shailendra Kumar .... Petitioners

¶9

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

--For the Petitioners :- Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mrs.Priya Shrestha, Advocate ----

¶13

6 /12.12.2023 Notice upon O.P.No.2 has already been effected, however,

¶14

nobody is present on behalf of the O.P.No.2. Identical was the situation on 04.12.2018, 16.03.2020 and 26.06.2021. This petition is being heard in absence of the O.P.No.2.

¶15

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Haider Nagar P.S. Case No.24 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1125 of 2015, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau.

¶16

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant happened to be owner of a car bearing registration No.JH01BD 6170 having insured with Bajaj Allianz Company having validity period till 24.12.2014. While coming back by the said car from Garhwa to Ranchi and while crossing Koyel River all of sudden the car slipped into the water while trying to save the calf which was witnessed by the people standing there as per complainant. This was informed the Fiat company and thereafter car was toed by break down service on hire and brought at service centre at Ranchi and thereafter the complainant in prescribed format presented his claim before Bajaj Allianz office. The Claim Manager along with another called upon the complainant and informed that enquiry would be conducted. It is alleged that deceitfully the accused persons managed to hire a Maruti car at the rate of Rs.5000/- and after taking statement of the witnesses returned back but

¶17

¶18

they refused to pay the rent of the car. It is alleged that in fact the accused persons had deceitfully made the complainant believe that they will pay the claim amount as such the complainant lodged the present case.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are employees of Bajaj Allianz Company and for repudiation of the insurance claim the present case has been filed and till date the charge sheet has not been submitted by the police.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the said case is being investigated by the police and till date the charge sheet is not submitted.

¶21

The Court looking into the contents of the FIR finds that in paragraph no.11 it has been stated that the amount with regard to damaged vehicle was not paid and claim has been repudiated. It is crystal clear that for repudiation of the insurance claim the present complaint case has been filed.

¶22

In view of above, if any case is there, that is the case of deficiency is made out against the petitioners and it is settled that any deficiency detected post purchase opens the avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer fora as held in the case of “Devashish Sinha & Others v. R.N.R Enterprise” (2023) 3 SCC 195.

¶23

In view of the above, so far the petitioners are concerned entire criminal proceeding arising out of Haider Nagar P.S. Case No.24 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1125 of 2015, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau are quashed.

¶24

This petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

SI/

Sanoj Singh And Ors. v. The State Of Jhrkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanoj Singh And Ors. v. The State Of Jhrkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Radha Kant Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siddartha Jain Alias Sidharth Jai Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Meena Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Paresh Puran And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ujjawal Kumar Vs State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.