advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, January 20, 2013

The complainant gave intimation of theft to opposite party on 12.8.2008. Opposite Party repudiated claim on account of violation of condition = complainant’s truck was insured by OP and during subsistence of insurance, the truck was stolen on 20.5.2008 and on the very same day FIR was lodged under Section 379 IPC. Complainant has not mentioned purposely in the complaint that when intimation of theft was given to OP. But, letter dated 19.8.2008 issued by OP by which claim was repudiated reveals that by letter dated 12.8.2008, intimation of theft was given by the complainant to OP meaning thereby intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company after 83 days of theft. As per terms and conditions of the policy it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate about theft to the OP immediately.


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                                                NEW DELHI        


REVISION PETITION NO. 4762 OF 2012

(From the order dated 18.9.2012 in Appeal No.233/11 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)


Surender
S/o Shri Kishan Singh,
R/o Vill. BidhalDisttSonepat,
Haryana                                                                                   …        Petitioner/OP

                                      Versus

National Ins. Co. Ltd.
Azadpur Branch II
(Direct Agent Branch)
Laxmi Tower, C-1/3, Naini Wala Bagh,
Azadpur Commercial Complex,
Delhi  - 110 033                                       …    Respondents/Complainant

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER

          For the Petitioner             :         Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate
         

PRONOUNCED ON  18th January,  2013

 

O R D E R


 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 233 of 2011 – National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surender by which while allowing appeal, set aside the order of learned District Forum and dismissed complaint.
2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent’s Truck HR 46 F 2837 was insured with OP/Respondent w.e.f. 04.10.2007 to 03.10.2008.  On 20.5.2008, the truck was stolen and on the very same day, FIR No.81/2008 was lodged by complainant at PS: Sindhawali AhirBaghpat.  
The complainant gave intimation of theft to opposite party on 12.8.2008.  Opposite Party repudiated claim on account of violation of condition and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before the District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP/Respondent to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  OP filed appeal before the State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint.
3.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as report of theft was made on the very same day and OP was also informed timely, hence, the revision petition may be accepted and order of the learned State Commission be set aside. 
5.      This is an admitted fact that complainant’s truck was insured by OP and during subsistence of insurance, the truck was stolen on 20.5.2008 and on the very same day FIR was lodged under Section 379 IPC.  Complainant has not mentioned purposely in the complaint that when intimation of theft was given to OP. But, letter dated 19.8.2008 issued by OP by which claim was repudiated reveals that by letter dated 12.8.2008, intimation of theft was given by the complainant to OP meaning thereby intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company after 83 days of theft.  As per terms and conditions of the policy it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate about theft to the OP immediately.  Learned State Commission has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed claim of the complainant on the basis of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment 2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP) – Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anrand other judgments of this Commission.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned State Commission and there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned State Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
5.      Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
                                                                           ..…………………………
( V.B. GUPTA, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-
..……………………………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
 MEMBER
k







No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.