NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.1227 OF 2012

(Against the order dated 28.11.2011 in First Appeal No.931/2009 of the State Commission, Haryana)

Dharambir, S/o Sh.JhangiRam R/o H No.89, Ram Nagar, Karnal Haryana

.Petitioner

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office GaganBuilding G T Road, Karnal

Haryana Also at New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Regional Office: SCO no.36-37 Sector- 17-A, Chandigarh

.....Respondent

BEFORE

HONBLE MR.JUSTICEJ. M. MALIK,

PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Ms.RenuVerma, Advocate

For the Respondent:Mr. J.P.N.Shahi, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON: 01.11.2012.

ORDER

PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

The revision petitionerShriDharambirwas the Complainant before the District Forum,Karnal.The matter pertains to a car which was stolen on 24.10.2007.The OP/New India Assurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the Complainant had no insurable interest on the date of loss, as he had already sold vehicle to oneShriDilpritSingh on 24.7.2007.The District Forum examinedShriDilpritSingh, who stated that he had borrowed the car from the ComplainantDharambirfor journey to Chandigarh and had not purchased it from him.The District Forum therefore allowed the complaint and directed the insurance Company to indemnify the Complainant.Appeal of the present respondent/New India Assurance Company was allowed by the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission on reconsideration of the documentary evidence led before theforabelow.

2.Therefore, the main question is whether the petitionerDharambirwas the owner of the car in question or whether it wasDilpritSingh.The records of the case have been carefully perused by us and the two counsels,Ms.RenuVerma, for the revision petitioner andMr.J.P.N.Shahi, for the respondent, have been heard.The main ground of challenge to the impugned order of the State Commission is that the State Commission had failed to consider the statements of the Complainant andDilpritSingh before the District Forum that they had been misguided by the insurance agent. The revision petition also objects to consideration of certain records by the State Commission on the ground that they were not produce before the District Forum.

3.However, interestingly one of the grounds of challenge to the impugned order comes very close to admitting that the vehicle hadinfactbeen sold toDilprit Singh but its ownershipwas not transferred as the whole considerationhad not been paid by the buyer, while the liability of the seller to pay the financier was still continuing.The relevant ground (H) read as follows:-

That assuming though not admitting that the car was sold by the complainant toDilpreetSingh, theHonbleState Commission should have considered that as per the alleged annexure A-4 the whole consideration/price of the car has not been paid byDilpreetSingh and the complainant is still liable to pay to the ICICI Bank; hence the ownership of the car remains with the complainant.

4.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has relied upon the following documents in arriving at its findings:-

a)The FIR filed before the Police (Annexure- 6) on 29.10.2007 was filed byDilpritSingh, as the owner of the vehicle and not by the Complainant.

b)In the affidavit of 25.9.2007 (Annexure 5), the ComplainantDharambirs/oJhangiRam has categorically stated that:-

1. I have sold a Hyundai Accent car bearing Registration no.HR05S-2616 model 2006 engine no.307124 and chassis no.156038 to Sh.DilpreetSingh son of Sh.HarvinderSingh R/o H.No.321-R, Model TownKarnalon 24/7/2007.

2. That the deponent has received its payment from the purchaser and balance amount of loan will be paid by the purchaser to the bank/Fi.

3. That after 24/7/2007 the purchaser will be responsible for all kinds of accidents, court case,poliechallanbank/FI dues against the said vehicle.

4. That the deponent has not any objection if the said vehicle be transferred in the name of the purchaser after the clearance of loan dues of bank/FI.

This document not only shows that the vehicle had been sold toDilpritSingh but also gives the reasons why it has not been registered in the name of the purchaser. Its contents are also in line with Ground H in the revision petition, mentioned earlier in this order.

c)The Delivery cum-Receipt of thevehicle(Annexure 4) has been executed 24.7.2007, in a printed form.It is not only signed by these two persons as the vendor and the vendee but also by two witnesses.

d)In a letter of 3.12.2007 (Annexure 3), addressed byDilpritSingh to SDM (Registering Authority, Motor VehicleKarnal) a request is made totheRegisteringAuthority not to register this vehicle in the name of any other persons as it belongs to him. It is also informed that it was stolen on 24.10.2007 and has not been traced since then.

5.The revision petitioner has questioned acceptance of the above documents by the State Commission on the ground that they were not produced before the District Forum.However, from the records we find that these documents were clearly mentioned in the appeal memorandum of the present respondents before the State Commission.The revision petitioner was not unrepresented and his counsel was heard by the State Commission.This would mean that the petitioner/Complainant had full opportunity to question the veracity of any of these documents, if he had wished so. We therefore, do not accept the objection now raised by him in the present proceedings.

6.We find that the above documents considered by the State Commission, clearly establish that the complainant had sold the vehicle toDilpritSingh before it was stolen. Therefore, the State Commission was right when it held that the OP/Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim.

7.On the question of insurable interest, the following two decisions have been cited by the counsel for the petitioner:-

1.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Vs. G.N.Sainani, (1997) 6 -SCC 383.

2.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. T.T. Finance Ltd. &Ors., AIR 2011 Delhi, 121.

The first related to assignment of the policy of insurance of goods under a Marine insurance policy.HonbleSupreme Court held that the assignee of policy of insurance must have an existing insurable interest in the goods till the time of termination of the insurance so as to entitle him to lodge a complaint as a consumer.The second case arose from loss of an insured vehicle.The insurance policy was issued in the name of the finance company and the borrower.The High Court of Delhi held that insurable interest clearly existed in favour of the finance company as it had financed purchase of the vehicle under a hire purchase agreement.The fact that the name of theloneewas also mentioned in the insurancepolicy,would make no difference as the contract was between insurance company and the finance company.

8.The facts in both these cases are totally different and therefore, the case of the revision petitioner does not derive any support from either decision.

9.In conclusion, we find no substance in this revision petition and dismiss the same for want of merit.The order of Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission in FA No.931 of 2009 is accordingly confirmed.

.Sd/-

(J. M. MALIK, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-.

(VINAY KUMAR)

MEMBER

s./-

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2012

(From the order dated 11.04.2012 in Appeal No. 1813/2006 of the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)

WITH IA/1/2012, IA/2/2012

(STAY & DELAY)

1.Manju Sharma @ Mamta Bhardwaj w/o late Shri Ashok Kumar

S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal

2.Ms. Anshu Bhardwaj (minor) d/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar through

the gaurdship of Mamta Sharma @ Mamta Bhardwaj hear real mother

3.Kela Devi Mother of Late ShriAshok Kumar & widow of late Shri Rattan Lal All residents of H.No. 283/3, Opposite Ajit Cinema,Delhi Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)

Petitioners

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India,Branch Unit 122, E.P. Plot No. 17,

Near Syndicate Bank Old Railway Road, Gurgaon-122001 through

Its Senior/Branch Manager (At Present) Life Insurance Corporation

of India, Branch Unit 122, at Plot No. 104, Sector 44, Near Gold Souk,

Chowk, behind Apreal House, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, Thorugh Its

Chief Manager

Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr. Rishi Jain, Advocate with

Mr. Rajender Pathak &

Mr. Vinod Kr. Bhardwaj, Advocates

Pronounced on :1stNovember, 2012

ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.Deceased Ashok Kumar had obtained three Life Insurance Policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Opposite Party, on separate dates.Unfortunately, the insured passed away on 17.08.2003.The case of the petitioner Smt. Mamta Sharma @ Mamta Bhardwaj, wife of the insured and other complainants is that the deceased died due to electrocution.Since the complainants failed to produce evidence in this respect, therefore, the accident benefits were denied by the opposite party.Both the Foras below have refused to allow the claim prayed by the complainants.

2.We have heard the counsel for the petitioners.He explained that the deceased/insured died of electrocution.He was taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where he died.A slip-Annexure 20 reveals that the body of the deceased was handed over to Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased for taking him to Civil Hospital.Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per society rituals, the body of the deceased was not taken to the Civil Hospital for postmortem examination.The case of the petitioner hinges upon the fact that a civil suit was filed against the LIC, wherein Dr. Arun Vashisth, Medical Officer, Kalyani Hospital admitted that the deceased had died due to electrocution.It is also interesting to note that the statement of Dr. Arun Vashisth, Medical Officer was also recorded before the District Forum.In his deposition, Dr. Arun Vashisth stated that the patient was brought to the hospitals emergency department and was declared dead on arrival.He further stated that the ECG showed flat line.He testified that he was brought with the history of electric shock. In his cross-examination, he explained that he cannot comment on the exact cause of death of the patient but the patient was brought with the history of electrocution.He could not say whether the postmortem was conducted on the dead body or not.Learned counsel for the petitioners opined that all these facts and circumstances sufficiently establish the fact that the insured had died due to electrocution.

3.For the following reasons, we do not find ourselves amenable to these arguments.The deceased died due to electrocution is a mere allegation, which is not supported by any cogent, convincing ad conclusive evidence.It is difficult to fathom as to why did the kith and kin of the deceased think it better not to get the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased. It is not understood as to why did they bury their heads in the sand.Search for truth is the foundation of Judiciary.Again, truth is foundation of all knowledge and cement of all societies.It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the reasons.The absence of any evidence has taken the steam out of complainants case.It cannot be presumed that the deceased died due to electrocution.The evidence adduced by the complainants does not go to scotch the doubts about this case.

4.The revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed.

....J

(J.M. MALIK)

PRESIDING MEMBER

.

(VINAY KUMAR)

MEMBER

Jr/10

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISIONPETITIONNO.2615OF2011

with I.A. NO.01 OF 2012 (Application for Stay)

I.A. NO.02 OF 2012 (Application forCondonationof Delay)

(From the order dated 31.3.2011inAppeal No.537 of 2008ofthe State Commission,Punjab, Chandigarh)

Life Insurance Corporation of India (A Body Corporate Constitutedunderthe Life Insurance Corporation Act) H-39, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001.

.Petitioner

Vs.

1.Smt.PriyaSharma W/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

2.MasterNischalSharma, S/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

3.MissMansiSharma D/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

4.MasterChiragSharma S/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

Respondentsno.2 to 4 through their Mother and Natural Guardian Respondent no.1

Allat : 215A,NijatamNagar, Jalandhar, Punjab

Respondents

REVISIONPETITIONNO.2616OF2011

with I.A. NO.01 OF 2012 (Application for Stay)

I.A. NO.02 OF 2012 (Application forCondonationof Delay)

(From the order dated 31.3.2011inAppeal No. 538 of 2008ofthe State Commission,Punjab, Chandigarh)

Life Insurance Corporation of India (A Body Corporate Constitutedunderthe

Life Insurance Corporation Act) H-39, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001.

.Petitioner

Vs.

1.Smt.PriyaSharma W/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

2.MasterNischalSharma, S/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

3.MissMansiSharma D/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

4.MasterChiragSharma S/o of LateShriSanjay Sharma

Respondentsno.2 to 4 through their Mother and Natural Guardian Respondent no.1

Allat : 215A,NijatamNagar, Jalandhar, Punjab

Respondents

BEFORE:

HONBLE MR.JUSTICEV.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner(s):Mr.NeerajGupta, Advocate

Pronounced on: 2ndNovember, 2012

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

By this common order, above noted revision petitions are being disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved.

2.Facts in brief are that respondents/complainantsfiledcomplaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act) pleading thatrespondent no.1 is the wife and respondents no.2 to 4, are the children of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, who was running a sweet shop atBansawalaBazaar, Jalandhar. He had taken a Marriage Endowment/Educational Annuity Plan with profit along with accidental benefit, bearing policy no.131706510 for a sum of Rs.2.00lacsand alsoJeevanChhayapolicy bearing No.131915231 for a sum of Rs.2.00lacs. On 24.03.2005, Sh. Sanjay Sharma developed some pain in the stomach and was admitted in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and died on 24.03.2005. Respondent no.1, vide letter dated 05.07.2003 informed thepetitionerregardingdeath of her husband and requested it to settle the death claim under the above policies. However,petitioner, vide letters dated 27.10.2005 and 23.11.2005, repudiated the death claim of late Sanjay Sharma,illegally on the ground that deceased was suffering from diabetes and was a chronic alcoholic for the last 10-20 years and he did not disclose these facts at the time of taking the policies.

3.Respondent no.1 made a representation against the repudiation letter dated 27.10.2005 and requested the Petitioner to withdraw the same and to afford an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner, vide letter dated 17.04.2006, declined the said representation.It is statedthatbeforeissuing the said policies, the agent/surveyor acting on behalf of the petitioner had satisfied himself qua the health of Sh. Sanjay Sharma-deceased.Thus, there was no concealment on the part of the insured. Finally, legal notice dated 31.05.2006 was also sent, but of no use. It was prayed that petitioner be directed to pay theclaimamountalong with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.

4.In its written statement, petitioner took preliminary objection that the life assured at the time of taking the policies has suppressed the material facts and gave wrong answers in the proposal form. The duration of the policy was one year and eight months and it was reported that the life assured was in the habit of taking alcohol and was addicted to it.It is alleged that as per Form no.3816 issued by the DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, it reported diagnosis of acute pancreatitis K/L/O of DMX 2 to 3 years and history of alcohol intake 10 to 20 years. As per report,insuredwas admitted in the hospital with complaint of pain in the abdomen and vomiting. Further, as per history given by the said hospital in Form no.3784, it transpired that alcoholic intake 10 to 20 years 500 M.L. K/L/O of DMX 2 to 3 years of regular medicines and the history was reported by the patient himself.Thus, petitioner rightly repudiated the claim of policy no.131706510 and other policy no.131915231 and decision was conveyed to the respondent no.1, vide registered letter dated 27.10.2005. Appeal filed by the respondents before theZonalOfficer (C.R.C.), New Delhi, was also dismissed and the decision was conveyed, vide letter dated 17.04.2006. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

5.District Consumer DisputesRedressalForum, Jalandhar (for short District Forum ) vide its order dated 29.2.2008, allowed the complaints and quashed the repudiation letter and directed the petitioner to honour the policy and release all the benefits including interest and bonus to the nominees at the stipulated rate as per terms and conditions of the policy.Further, respondents were awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation,tillpayment and also awarded cost of Rs.3,000/-.

6.Aggrieved by the orders of District Forum, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission which vide its impugned order, dismissed the appeals of the petitioner.

7.Hence, this revision.

8.It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that contract of insurance is a contract of utmost good faith.In the present case, the insured has suppressed the material facts about his health and habits in the proposal form at the time of taking of the policy.The suppression of material information itself violates the terms of the contract.Under these circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9.District Forum in its order has held;

In this case, case of the complainant is covered U/s 45 Sub Clause 2 of Life Insurance Act only and the OPs were bound to prove that insured was suffering from pre-existing disease before taking policy and he deliberately made the false statement with intention to defraud the Insurance Company.

Therefore, in this case, the Insurance Company was bound to prove that insured had received treatment in diabetes mellitus or he was being aware from the suffering of the disease before purchase of the policy.In this case documents 3816 and 3784 produced by the OPs, Ex.O-6 and Ex.O-7 produced by the OPs relates to the treatment much after the policy and there is no medical record or affidavit of the doctor that insured had taken treatment before start of the policy.Therefore, in this case, the OPs have failed to produce the direct evidence of treatment before start of the policy.

10.The State Commission while upholding the decision of District Forum, observed;

14.Admittedlypolicy no.131706510 was for Marriage/EducationalAnnuityetc. and it was accepted on 15.07.2003. The deceased life assured Sh. Sanjay Sharma developed pain in the stomach and was admitted in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana on 24.03.2005 and cause of death given was acute severe pancreatitis and shock. He was diagnosed as acute pancreatitis K/L/O of DMX 2 to 3 years, history of alcohol intake 10 to 20 years. The onus was on the appellant to prove that the decease life assured was suffering from such diseases prior to taking of the policy in question. The appellant tendered the affidavit Ex.OW1 of Sh. S.L.Dhupar, Manager, who has stated on oath as per the reply filed. Ex.OW2 is the affidavit of Sh. R.K. Sharma, Manager, who has deposed that as per medical record, life assured was suffering from acute pancreatitis K/L/O of DMX 2 to 3 years andasperthe record, the life assured had the history of alcohol intake 10 to 20 years. Ex.OW3 is the affidavit ofDr.Raj Kumar Vagal. He has also deposed that as per the record, Sh. Sanjay Sharma was admitted in the hospital on 22.03.2005 and at the time of admission, the hospital maintained the record and Sh. Sanjay Sharma was discharged from the hospital on 23.03.2005. Form no.3816 was duly filled in as per the record maintained by the hospital and Form no.3816 is correct as per the record maintained by the hospital. Ex.O5 is the certificate of Identity and Burial or Cremation and in columns no.6,7 and 11, what was diagnosed and case summary, is given by one Rajiv of DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana which is signed by the Professor, Department of Surgery, DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and is countersigned by the Medical Superintendent of DMC & Hospital, . Ex.O7 is the certificate of hospital treatment wherein in columns no.6 and 7, diagnosis are given and in column no.11 (history of illness as per the record), it is mentioned that patient was not admitted before this time. Ex.O8 is the death certificate. Ex.O9 is Agents Confidential Report and Ex.10 is the policy in question and Ex.11 is the letter dated 27.10.2005, repudiating the claim of the respondent no.1 Smt.PriyaSharma. Ex.12 is the medical attendance certificate and it was given byDr.SagarSabharwal. The appellant has not examined any of the doctors or the persons, who wrote the history or the person, who gave the history. The appellant has also examined Sh.PawanKumar, Head Clerk, Medical Record Department, DMC & Hospital,Ludhiana. He has deposed that he has brought the record pertaining to patient Sh. Sanjay Sharma and he was admitted in their hospital on 24thMarch, 2005 in emergency department and was treated byDr.RajeevAroraand he died on the same day. LIC Form No.3816 was filled up byDr.RajeevAroraand signed byDr.KuldeepSingh which is countersigned by the Medical Superintendent of the hospital. Similarly, Form No.3784 was filled up byDr.Sabharwaland the information recorded is correct. In his cross examination, he deposed that the record is not in his handwriting and the same was not prepared by him. He does not know regarding the deceased and the treatment which was given to Sh. Sanjay Sharma in their hospital. He cannot tell personally as to for how many years, deceased Sh. Sanjay Sharma was suffering from any alleged disease. Neither the deceased nor his wife Smt.PriyaSharma narrated the history regarding the health of deceased Sanjay Sharma in his presence. He further admitted that in Form No.3816 in column no.5(c), it is mentioned by the hospital regarding the health of Sh. Sanjay Sharma narrated by his wife Smt.PriyaSharma and in contradiction to this statement in Formno.3784,it has been mentioned in column no.7 (c) that the history of deceased was narrated by the patient himself. He admitted thatDr.SagarSabharwalandDr.RajeevAroraboth are working as Senior Residents in the hospital.Dr.KuldeepSingh is still in the hospital. He has not worked under any of the doctors under reference, as his duty is confined only to maintain the record of the patients in the record room.

15.Thus, from the entire evidence led by the appellant, it is clear that the relevant piece of evidence has not come on record, to prove that the deceased life assured was suffering from pre-existing disease at the time of taking the policy. NeitherDr.SagarSabharwalnorDr.RajeevArora, who are still working in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana as Senior Residents, was examined. As per witnessPawanKumar,Dr.KuldeepSingh is still working in the hospital, but he has not been examined. The witness examined by the appellant is of no help to the appellant, as he knows nothing about the assured or any disease/pre-existing disease suffered by him because he is only maintaining the record.

11.State Commission further observed;

In this case, there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease at the time of purchasing the policy. As discussed above, the onus lay heavily on the appellant to prove that the deceased life assured suppressed the material facts and even the doctor of the appellant, who examined the life assured at the time of taking the policy, has also not been examined and how it can be expected that a competent doctor examining the person before the purchase of policy, will not be able to detect that the person filling the proposal form is not suffering from such disease which exists much prior to the date of taking of the policy. There is no evidence to prove that the deceased was ever admitted or took any treatment from any hospital or the doctor regarding theallegedpre-existing disease.The District Forumhasarrivedata correct conclusion and there is no ground to interfere in the same."

12.As per settled law,theonusto prove that insured was suffering from pre-existing disease is on the petitioner.Petitioner has admittedly not examined any doctor to prove this fact that insured was suffering from any pre-existing disease at the time of taking the policy.Had the Doctor been examined, then respondents would have got the opportunity to examine the petitioners witnesses and to demolish the petitioners defence.

13.InTarlokChandKhannav/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.I(2012) CPJ 84 (NC)this Commission has observed;

The onus to prove that the Petitioner was suffering from a pre-existing disease as per settled law is on the respondent.We note that the respondent has not produced any credible documentary evidence/expert medical opinion in support of its case.The medical opinion dated 16.3.2003 ofDr.NeelKanthSharma cited in support is of little evidentiary value because he is not a medical expert being an M.B.B.S doctor and on the panel of physicians of the Respondent/Insurance Company.His letter is also not backed by any affidavit nor was he ever cross-examined.Further, it is not disputed that the insured had been takingmediclaimpolicy right from 1996 and nowhere has it been recorded that she had any medical condition including the problem of the knees, by the Respondents doctor who examined her.Thus, there is no record produced by the Respondent to indicate that any such disease existed and that it was, therefore, pre-existing disease was on the Respondent which as stated above, it has failed to do.

14.It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope ofrevisionaljurisdiction is very limited.This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

15.Recently, Supreme Court inGurgaonGraminBank Vs. Smt.Khazani&Anr., Civil Appeal No.6261 of 2012 decided on 4.9.2012, hasobserved ;

12.We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National DisputesRedressalCommission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court.In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this Court.

16.In view of the above facts it has not been established by the petitioner that insured had any pre-existing disease which would justify repudiation of the claim.

17.For the reasons stated above and particularly in the absence of any credible documentary or other evidence produced by the petitioner on whom was the onus to prove the reasons for repudiation, both these revision petitions stand dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each.

18.Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Accountofthis Commission, within four weeks from today.

19.In case, cost is not deposited within the prescribed period, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

20.Pending applications, if any,standdisposed of.

21.List on 14.12.2012 for compliance.

..J

(V.B. GUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sg/

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI

REVISIONPETITIONNO.1924OF2011

(From the orderdated27.4.2011inFirst Appeal No.702/2010ofthe State Commission,Chhattisgarh, Raipur)

NirmalSingh S/oShriJagdishSingh, R/oTatibandh, Raipur (C.G.)

2ndAddress: C/o B.N. Road Lines, Lift & Sift Complex, Ring Road No.2,

Gondwara, Raipur (C.G.)

.Petitioner

Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Senior

Divisional Manager Division Office No.2, ChawlaComplex,

DevendraNagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)

...Respondent

BEFORE:

HONBLE MR.JUSTICEV.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K.Bhawnani, AdvocateFor the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate

Pronounced on:5thNovember, 2012

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Petitioner by way of present revision has challenged order dated 27.4.2011, passed by State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission, Raipur (for short, State Commission).

2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant being the owner of Truck No.C.G.17-H/8111, had insured the same with respondent/O.P. under Policy No.61602 for period from 22.06.2007 to 21.06.2008, having Insured value of Rs.7,00,000/-. Said vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2007 resulting in its extensive damage due to collusion with another truck. Intimation about loss caused to the truck, was sent to the respondent, which appointed an Investigator/ Surveyor, who conducted spot survey of the site of accident. Intimation of accident was also given to the Police. Petitioner averred that claim form along with relevant documents was subsequently filed with respondent which entrusted M/s Sunil & Company for assessment of loss caused to the vehicle. Petitioner cooperated with the Surveyor in assessment of loss and also provided him relevant bills, who submitted his report to the respondent on 31.10.2007. Petitioner averred that he had suffered loss of Rs.5,79,137/-,whereas respondent without any proper reason assessed the loss as Rs.3,10,000/-only.It is further alleged by the petitioner that on 21.7.2008 he wrote a letter to the respondent and raised objection that the total loss in the vehicle is of Rs.5,79,137/-. Even thereafter, respondent has sanctioned Rs.3,10,000/- and in this way this amount was not accepted by the petitioner. Further, petitioner in his letter has clearly stated that since he has suffered heavy loss in the vehicle and financial also, therefore by keeping his rights reserved, he is accepting the said amount under protest.Since, respondent did not settle the complete amount of loss as per the bills submitted by him, it amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Thus, petitioner prayed that respondent be directed to pay balance claim of Rs.2,79,137/-alongwithcompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and costs of the proceedings.

3. Respondent,whileresisting the complaint, averred that it had entrusted M/s Sunil & Company for assessment of loss caused to the vehicle, which after inspecting the vehicle on 01.08.2007, submitted its report. Said surveyor initially had assessed the estimated loss of Rs.4,50,000/- and finally assessed the loss as per actual bills. Respondent averred that Surveyor in its final report dated 31.10.2007 had assessed salvage value of Rs.7,500/-, which was subsequently reassessed for Rs.15,000/-. Further, as per final assessment of Surveyor, a discharge voucher for Rs.3,10,000/- was sent to the petitioner on 27.06.2008, who executed the same independently under full and final settlement of claim. Hence, respondent settled the claim for Rs.3,10,000/- and as such it had not committed any deficiency in service.

4. District Consumer DisputesRedressalForum, Raipur (for short District Forum), vide its order dated 2.11.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,69,137/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.10.2008 and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony with cost of litigation Rs.1,000/-.

5.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order, modified the order of District Forum and passed the following directions;

(i)The appellant will pay Rs,36,430/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty only) in lieu of the amount as awarded in the impugned order.

(ii)Other part of the order of Learned District Forum will remain unaltered.

6.Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present petition.

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

8.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has not gone through the documents and affidavit filed by the petitioner and has passed the order which is against law.

9.Further, State Commission overlooked the important factthatallthe bills were produced before the surveyor and the respondent, but same were not accepted by them.The said bills were presented before the District Forum which after considering all the facts have awarded the balance amount of Rs.2,69,137/-.The State Commission on imaginary ground reduced the amount without any reason.

10.It is further contended that the State Commission rejected the various items claimed by the petitioner without anyreasonandhas not even considered the amountwhich was spent by the petitioner.Therefore, the order of the State Commission deserves to be modified.

11.On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that amount of Rs.3,10,000/- has been sanctioned as per the surveyors report. Further, discharge voucher was signed by the petitioner voluntarily and without any force or pressure and principle of estoppel will apply in this case.The present complaint filed by the petitioner is an after-thought and there isnoambiguityin the impugned order.

12.The State Commission in its impugned order has held as under;

Undisputedly, the questioned vehicle was insured with the appellant company, and its accident claim was settled for Rs.3,10,401/- as per surveyors report and after collecting discharge voucher from the respondent

13.As per record, respondent vide its letter dated 14.7.2008 (page 62ofthepaper book) informed the petitioner that his claim have been approved for Rs.3,10,000/- and he was requested to sign the discharge voucher. In response to this letter, petitioner vide his letter dated 21.7.2008, stated that sum of Rs.3,10,000/- offered by respondent is not acceptable to him.However, since his vehicle has suffered the damage and he has suffered financial loss, subject to his rights, he is willing to accept that amount.

14.In response to petitioners letter dated 21.7.2008, the respondent sent him letter dated July 28, 2008, relevant portion of which reads as under;

The discharge voucher sent to you has however not been returned duly signed by your side.In absence of which the companycan notproceed further to make payment towards the subject claim.

The sum arrived at is most reasonable as it is solely based on the bills of repairs submitted by you, and the company being indemnifier can only be liable to indemnify the actual loss (supported with bills) suffered by the insured.You should therefore have no objection regarding acceptance of the amount assessed by the company in full andfinalsatisfactionof the claim.

You are, therefore, requested to send the discharge voucher duly signed as acknowledgement of acceptance of amount, to enable the company to settle the claim as early as possible.

15.Thus, it is manifestly clear that respondent vide its letter dated 28.7.2008, again brought to the notice of the petitioner that sum of Rs.3,10,000/- would be towards full and final settlement.The petitioner, knowingly and willingly signed the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his claim.Now, petitioner is estopped from repudiating the discharge voucher duly singed by him.

16.Law on this subject has been clearly laid down byHonbleSupreme Court of India inUnited India Insurance Vs.Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 400,in which it was held that, discharge voucher though signed as full and final may not be treated as final if the consumer can satisfy the Court that it was obtained through undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.HonbleCourt has observed:

The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respectto the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a positionto satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority beforewhomthe complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief.However (sic so), where such dischargevoucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. Theremereexecutionof discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance would notestopthe insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier.The Consumer DisputesRedressalForums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the insurance companies notwithstanding the issuance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the insurance companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.

In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints.

17.InBhagwatiPrasadPawanKumarVsUnion ofIndia(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 311,Apex Court has observed;.

18.Section 8 of the Contract Act provides for acceptance by performing conditions of a proposal.In the instant case, the Railway made an offer to the appellant laying down the conditions that if the offer was not acceptable thechequeshould be returned forthwith, failing which it would be deemed that the appellant accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of its claim. This was further clarified by providing that the retention of thechequeand/or encashment thereof will automatically amount to satisfaction in full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, if the appellant accepted thechequesandencashedthemwithout anything more, it would amount to an acceptance of the offer made in the letters of the Railways dated 74.1993. The offer prescribed the mode of acceptance, and by conduct the appellant must be held to have accepted the offer and, therefore, could not make a claim later. However, if the appellant had notencashedthechequesand protested to the Railwayscallinguponthem to pay the balance amount, and expressed its inability to accept thechequesremitted to it, the controversy would have acquired a differed complexion. In that event, in view of the express non-acceptance of the offer, the appellant could not be presumed to have accepted the offer.What,however is significant is that the protest andchequesareencashedwithout protest, then it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted. An offeree cannot be permitted to change his mind after the unequivocal acceptance of the offer.

19.It is well settled that an offer may be accepted by conduct. But conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that theoffereedid the act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer. The decisions which we have noticed above also proceed on this principle. Each case must rest on its own facts. The courts must examine the evidence to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of the offeree was such as amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made. If thefact of the case disclosethat there was no reservation in signifying acceptance by conduct, it must follow that the offer has been accepted by the conduct. On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that the offeree had reservation in accepting theoffer,his conduct may not amount to acceptance of the offer in terms of Section 8 of the Contract Act.

18.In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was compelled by the respondent at any stage to settle the claim at lesser amount than the claim made by him. There is also not an iota of evidence on record to show that any official of the respondent compelled the petitioner to settle the claim at lesser amount. Interestingly, petitioner after having received the sum of Rs.3,10,000/- as far as back in the year2008, has been enjoying the aforesaid money for more than four years. Now petitioner wants to repudiate the discharge voucher duly signed by him. This clearly showsmalafideintention on the part of the petitioner in filing the present complaint. It is well settled that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not meant for enrichment of the consumer. Once petitioner has received the amount unconditionally, under these circumstances petitioner cease to be Consumer as per the Act. Theprivityof contract or relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties if any, came to an end, the moment petitioner accepted the amount unconditionally.

19.Thus, there is no merit in the present petition and same is accordingly dismissedwith cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

20.Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today.

21.In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

22.List on 14thDecember, 2012 for compliance.

..J

(V.B. GUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sg/

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.130 OF 2012

[Against the order dated 29.09.2011 in First Appeal No. 198 of 2007 of the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula]

National Controlling Equipment Industries 65,LuxmiVihar,

Near Sector-10 VillageJandi,AmbalaCity

Petitioner

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager

106, Railway Road,AmbalaCantt

Respondent

Before :

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr.ImtiazAhmad, Advocate

Pronouncedon :5thNovember, 2012

O R D E R

PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

1.This revision petition by the complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 29thof September, 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula(State Commission for short) passed in First Appeal No. 198 of 2007.By this order the State Commission has set aside the order dated 15.06.2007 of the District Consumer DisputesRedressalForum,Ambala(District Forum for short) passed in Complaint No. 189 of 2006 and dismissed the complaint.The District Forum vide its order had held that the claim of the petitioner/complainant was genuine and that he had suffered a loss of Rs.4,46,700/- and had directed the respondent/Insurance Company to pay the said amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim and in addition pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had obtained a loan against hypothecation of goods from Central Bank of India,AmbalaCity.In order to secure any risk to its loan amount, the said Bank had obtained an insurance policy to cover any incidence of theft for the hypothecated goods/articles for the period 30thof December, 2003 to 29thof December, 2004.Unfortunately, there was an incident of theft in the premises during the intervening night of 01.02.2004 and 02.02.2004 (wrongly stated as 31.01.2004 and 02.02.2004) and according to the petitioner/complainant goods worth Rs.4,46,700/- were stolen.An FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station on 03.02.2004 and intimation in this regard too was given to the respondent/Insurance Company, who thereupon appointedDuggalGupta and Associates, the surveyors, to assess the loss.The said surveyor after verifying the goods reported that the loss was only to the tune of Rs.14,798/-.Even this meager amount was not paid to the petitioner/complainant on the pretext of the petitioner/complainant not giving a letter of subrogation.Aggrieved by this attitude of the respondent/Insurance Company, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who, on contest by the parties and after considering their submissions, passed the award as already stated above.Aggrieved thereby the respondent/Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission, who has set aside the District Forums order and resultantly the complaint too has been dismissed.The complainant now, in turn, has filed the revision petition with the prayer to set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the award passed in hisfavourby the District Forum.

3.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant.His main contention is that the State Commission has blindly believed the report of the surveyor, who stated that the goods were purchased from a sister concern.According to him, there was no evidence to support this averment.Besides, if the documents were either forged or fabricated, the respondent/Insurance Company should have taken suitable action against the petitioner/complainant.His further contention is that the State Commission ought to have taken into consideration the list of stolen goods/articles of stocks supplied to the police on the next day of lodging the FIR and that should have been believed.

4.We have considered the learned counsels argument only to be rejected for the simple reason that the State Commission has thoroughly examined the facts, circumstances, background and the report of the surveyor, which has been extensively quoted in its order, and has correctly relied upon the report to hold that the authenticity of the purchases from a sister concern of the insured were doubtful.The list of stolen goods/articles was not furnished to the police at the first instance and the bills, which had been submitted, were procured after the occurrence of the theft.

5.In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

( R. C. JAIN, J. )

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(S.K. NAIK)

(MEMBER)

Mukesh

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.2534OF 2012

(Against the order dated 02.3.2012in FirstAppeal No. 24 of 2011 of theHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)

Virender Kumar, Son of Lakhmi Chand, Resident of 1608/04, Nehru Colony, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana

Petitioner (s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak Now at present: Through Authorized Signatory Regional Office, SCO No. 36-37, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh

Respondent (s)

BEFORE :

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner (s)Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate

DATED:7thNOVEMBER, 2012

ORDER

PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.3.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 24 of 2011, Virender Kumar, the original complainant in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, by which order the said District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant with the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. to pay Rs. 5,17,750/- only along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till its realization and a sum of Rs. 2,250/- as litigation charges with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within one month from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 03.01.2011 onwards till its realization.In appeal, the State Commission has reversed the said finding and order of the District Forum and has in turn dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the complainant had committed breach of Clause-1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, which inter-alia enjoined upon the complainant / insured to give in writing immediate intimation about the loss or damage caused to the insured vehicle on account of theft or accident, which breach disentitled the complainant to seek indemnification of the loss caused to the complainant on account of theft of his insured vehicle, his Eicher Canter bearing registration No. HR-46B-4468.

2.The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end.The insurance claim lodged by the complainant in regard to the theft of his insured vehicle No. HR-46B-4468 was repudiated by the insurance company, primarily on the ground that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as although, the vehicle was allegedly stolen on 25.7.2006 but FIR was lodged on 05.8.2006 and the insurance company was informed about the theft of the vehicle only on 10.8.2006.The complaint was also resisted by the insurance company on the same ground on which the claim was earlier repudiated.

3.We have heard Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioner-complainant and have considered his submissions.He tried to assail the impugned order mainly on the ground that the view taken by the State Commission is erroneous and has resulted into great hardship to the petitioner-complainant inasmuch as he has been non-suited on the ground that undue delay was occasioned in lodging the FIR and giving intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company.As regards the delay in lodging the FIR with the concerned police station, the learned counsel has invited our attention to a GD report dated 25.7.2006 purportedly lodged by the complainant with the police post incharge, PGIMS, Rohtak in regard to the theft of his vehicle.He submits that after the complainant has made the said report to the police, it was for the police to have recorded the FIR immediately, which the concerned police authorities delayed and registered the FIR only on 05.8.2006 for which delay the petitioner cannot be held responsible.In regard to the delay in giving the intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company, he submitted that the intimation was given to the concerned officer of the insurance company verbally on the date of the theft of the vehicle but the said officer declined to take notice of such intimation and advised the complainant-petitioner to give intimation in writing along with the copy of the FIR.That copy of the FIR was made available to the complainant only on 05.8.2006 and thereafter, the complainant gave the intimation to the concerned officer of the insurance company along with the copy of the FIR.He strongly contended that in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner-complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

4.We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions.The question as to whether the insured can be said to have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy in giving intimation after some delay i.e. delay of two days of the theft of an insured vehicle has been considered by this Commission inFirst Appeal No. 321 of 2005 titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Trilochan Janedecided on 09.12.2009, where on taking note of delay of two days, Commission held as under:

Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane.The said judgment was in a totally different context.In the said case, the plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of the terms of the Policy.The plea raised by the Insurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane.In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation.The delay in lodging the FIR after two days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabadi (scrap dealer).

In our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the respondent/ complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant-Insurance Company within a reasonable time.We are not going into the other question regarding violation of Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy as we have non-suited the respondent/complainant on the first ground.

5.In the case in hand, the delay in lodging the FIR and giving intimation to the insurance company was about 10 days and 15 days respectively and therefore, applying the ratio of the above noted case, the State Commission was fully justified in taking the view it has taken.In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The Revision Petition as such is dismissed in limine.

.....

(R. C. JAIN, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.2951 OF 2011

(From the order dated 16.2.2011 in F.A. No.648/2009 of the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula)

RahulTanwar R/oToshamBye Pass Road, New ShivMandir,DabarColony, Bhiwani, Haryana

Petitioner-Complainant

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Model Town,Rohtak Through its SeniorDivisonalManger, Bhiwani, Harayana.

Respondent-opposite party

BEFORE

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,

PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr.Samar Vijay Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent:Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON9thNOVEMBER,2012

O R D E R

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2011 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula(in short, the State Commission) inF.A. No.648/2009Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. RahulTanwarby which while accepting appeal order of learned District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

2.Brief facts of the case are that complainants Motor cycle bearing No. HR 16 D 7296 was insured byOppositeparty-respondent for the period from 20.10.2004 to 19.10.2005.On 13.2.2005, complainant/petitioners Motor cycle was stolen and FIR was lodged on 18.1.2005.Opposite party was also informed regarding theft of the Motor cycle and claim was submitted, but as the claim was repudiated, complainant filed complaint.Opposite party submitted reply and alleged that FIR was lodged after 6 days and as complainant did not submit documents within time, claim was repudiated.Learned District Forum after recording evidence and hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.36,000/- along with interest and Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by the State Commission against which this petition has been filed.

3.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party was informed about theft immediately, but FIR could be lodged with the Police Station after 5 days and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint, hence, petition may be allowed and order of District Forum may be restored.On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as complainant failed to inform to the opposite party immediately after theft.

5.It is admitted fact that complainant lodged FIR on 18.1.2005 whereas Motor cycle was stolen on 13.1.2005.As far information to the opposite party is concerned, complainant has simply stated in his complaint that opposite party was informed regarding theft of the Motor cycle and complainant visited office of the opposite party many times regarding claim. Complainant has not mentioned any specific date on which information was given to the opposite party.Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any letter written to opposite party depicting information regarding theft of Motor cycle. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that complainant informed opposite party regarding theft of motor cycle immediately or even before lodging FIR in the Police station. Learned State Commission has rightly dismissed complaint as complainant failed to inform the opposite party well in time, hence, there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2008) II SCC 259 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.NitinKhandelwalin which it was held that where insured vehicle has been stolen, claim cannot be repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of theft vehicle was used as a taxi whereas vehicle was insured as private vehicle.This citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as per terms and conditions of the policy, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate opposite party regarding theft of vehicle immediately and as complainant failed to inform or place any written information on record, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint.

7.Consequently, petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to cost.

Sd/-

.

( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-..

(SURESHCHANDRA )

MEMBER

k

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.299 OF 2001

ATN Packaging Private Limited A Company registered under the Indian Companys Act, 1956 as Private Limited Company and having its Registered office At 24-25, Khetani Industrial Estate, Bail Bazar, Kurla Mumbai- 400 070

.Complainant

Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. A Company incorporated under Act 57 of 1972, belonged to Government of India and Having its registered office at Madras and Regional Office and Division Office, which Issued the policy, is as Rohit Chamber, Janmabhumi Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001

.........Opposite party

BEFORE

HONBLE MR. JUSTICEJ. M. MALIK,

PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Complainant:Mr. Santosh Paul, Advocate with

Ms. Bagati, Advocate

For the Opposite party:Mr. R.N. Zadoo, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON:20.11.2012

ORDER

PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

In this complaint petition the proceedings before this Commission have witnessed interesting and significant developments. In 2010, three Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the complainant, seeking permission to file additional documents. These documents were obtained by the complainant, several years after this consumer complaint was filed. Therefore, Shri R N Zadoo, learned counsel for the OP/United India Insurance Co. Ltd, opposed the prayer on the ground that the evidence of the parties had already been led and the case had been listed for final hearing.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Complainant Shri Santosh Paul pressed for acceptance of these miscellaneous applications, stressing that these documents are very relevant to decide the controversy.Learned counsel for the OP/Insurance Co. sought time to file his objections but failed to file the same. The Commission allowed the prayer of the Complainant.Counsel for the OP later informed this Commission that he did not wish to file any evidence in rebuttal.

2.As per the Complaint petition of 2001, the case of the Complainant was that it was a private limited company in the business of packaging.In order to protect the movable and immovable properties of the Company, an insurance policy was taken from the OP in 1999.On 30.6.2000 the period of operation of the policy was coming to an end and it needed to be renewed from 1.7.2000.For this purpose a cheque, numbered 181456 for the renewal amount of Rs.34962/, was allegedly sent on 30.6.2000.The petitioner was telephonically informed that due to fall of water on it, the cheque had become defaced.Therefore, another cheque number 939257 drawn on State Bank of India was sent to the bank, on the same day.Allegedly, this subsequent cheque was duly acknowledged by the bank, by putting their rubber seal on the face of the covering letter.The rubber seal is dated 30.6.2000, but carries no signature/ initial of the recipient.

3.Following heavy rains on 12 and 13 of July, 2000 many parts of Mumbai were flooded.The flood water entered the factory of the Complainant and allegedly damaged the plant and machinery very badly.The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, who was given full cooperation by the Company.However, the claim of the Company was repudiated by the OP on 16.3.2001.The letter of repudiation stated that:-

We observe from the File that the subject loss has taken place on 12.07.2000 when there was no Policy in force.However, this office, in order to ascertain the extent of loss, deputed an independent Surveyor only for the purpose of arriving at the exact loss due to flood.

You have originally taken a Policy covering your properties under Policy No.409/99 issued by us which expired on 01.07.2000.This Policy was not renewed and therefore there is no Policy Contract.In the absence of the Contract of Insurance, we are unable to entertain your claim; we are therefore treating this claim as No Claim which please note.

4.Aggrieved by the repudiation, petitioner company filed this complaint with the following prayers:-

a.The Opposite Parties be ordered and directed to pay by award of this Honble Forum a Sum of Rs.42,74,529.00 [Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine Only.]

b.The Opposite Parties be ordered and directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. from 16-12-2000, the date on which loss is finally assessed and consent is obtained from the Petitioners by the surveyors after discussion with the insurance company till payment.

c.The Opposite Party be ordered and directed to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental torture and harassment and also Rs.1,00,000/- being fees to Advocate and Rs.50,000/- for expenses.

d.Such other and further order as this Honble Court deem fit and proper.

5.Responding to the above, a detailed affidavit was filed by Shri P.K. Arora, Deputy Manager, of the OP/Insurance Company.The receipt of cheque for the premium amount was categorically denied.It was alleged that the existing policy had expired on 1.7.2000 and it was not renewed.Therefore, no insurance policy was in force on 12.7.2000, when the loss occurred.In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that:-

It is submitted that the Complainant has not paid nor deposited any premium amount to Insure any of his property after 1-7-2000 with the Opposite Party.The opposite Partybe put to the strict proof to prove the submissions made in para No.4 of the complaint.The consisting normal practice/rule with the Opposite Party is that when ever any person deposits the premium Cheque or Cheque amount, at the same time proper receipt is issued by the Opposite Party.The said receipt contains proper initial of the concerned official who receives any such documents/Cheque etc. and the number of the entry.It is incorrect that the Opposite Party accepted the Cheque and the covering letter and has ever issued any receipt, as has been alleged in para No.4 of the Complaint.It is incorrect that the cheque No.181456 dt. 30-6-2000 drawn on Dena Bank was presented before the Opposite Party upto 9-3-2001.It is here submitted that Sh. Mehrnoosh H. Dubesh Development Officer on 9-3-2001 sent Cheque No.181456 dt.30-6-2000 which had water stain/defaced one, the said Cheque was given for Complainant in Aug. 2000, the said Cheque was immediately returned to him because the Cheque was time barred and invalid because of water stain.It is incorrect that an Cheque 939257 drawn on State Bank of India was ever presented by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.It is incorrect that any concerned official of the Opposite party has received Letter Ex-A.

6.In reply to the above contention about the manner in which letters/cheques are received by the OP/Insurance Company, the Complainant has filed his counter-affidavit of rejoinder on 5.5.2003.Along with this, he has produced copies of several letters received by the OP from different parties between 4.5.2000 and 11.10.2003.In all these letters, the acknowledgment is only the rubber seal of the OP carrying the relevant date and without any signature of the recipient.These documents have been produced as Exhibit- M.

7.It is evident from the above, that the entire dispute in this case revolves around answer to the question whether the insurance company had received the cheque for renewal of the policy before the expiry of the policy or not?

8.For an answer to the above question, we have carefully perused the records and the evidence submitted on behalf of the two parties and heard their respective counsels, at length. Sri Santosh Paul for the complainant extensively based his arguments on the documents filed in 2010, through three Miscellaneous Applications. On the other hand, Sri RN Zadoo, learned counsel for the OP/insurance company did not challenge any of these documents and confined his submissions to the original response of the OP.

9.Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the additional documents, obtained through recourse toright to information,for substantiating his claim that

a.The first cheque given on 30.6.2000 towards renewal premium was reportedly defaced. Therefore, another cheque was delivered on the same day.

b.The second cheque for renewal of the policy was received and acknowledged by the OP company but not encashed by the latter.

10.Report of Surveyor, Y J Daruwala dated 15.1.2001 (filed by the complainant with MA/285/2010), shows at the beginning that he was directed on 18.7.2000 by OP to assess the loss. He made several visits to the premises and had meetings with the Complainant and completed the assessment.But, his report says that:-

In the meanwhile Division Office No.9 had been requested to furnish the relevant policy since the assessment had almost been completed.

After repeated requests, on 5thSeptember, 2000 I was finally orally informed by Mr. Jhabak, Divisional Manager, that the policy for the earlier period had not been renewed.He requested me to await instructions from the Regional Office.

I received a letter dated 4thOctober, 2000 from Regional Office-I, Mumbai requesting that Survey Report be released as follows:

.....assess the loss (both on market Value and Reinstatement Value basis) without considering underinsurance/depreciation and compulsory excess.The loss assessment should be purely based on actual physical loss sustained by the Insured.However, you may mention the rate of depreciation to be deducted, assuming that the policy was issued on Market Value basis.

The loss has been assessed accordingly.

A copy of this letter of 4.10.2000 was produced by the complainant with MA/285/2010.This letter, signed by Sir I K Mathur, Manager of the United India Insurance Co., relies upon a letter of the complainant himselfand not on any internal decision of the Insurance Company not to renew the policy--- informing that the policy had not been renewed.

11.The question that arises at this point is why could the OP/insurance company not inform the surveyor in July 2000 itself that the policy had not been renewed. Part of the answer to the question why the Surveyor was kept waiting for an answer till 4.10.2000, comes from the inter office correspondence produced by the Complainant with MA/285/2010.One of the documents is the CLAIM NOTE of the fire department of the OP/Company dated 11.3.2002.It is signed by the following three officers:-

1.Latha Sitaraman, Divisional Manager.

2.L. Parmeswarn, Asst. Manager

3.Ms. P.C. Tilekar, Asst. Admtve. Officer.

12.The content of this note is very revealing when it says:-

Around the 2nd week of August2000, a defaced cheque was found by one of our Officers; he enquired about the cheque with all the Development Officers whether the cheque was belonging to any of the business which they brought. But, no Development Officer could identify the cheque.It was only when the news about the missing cheque was spread, and that too after the occurrence of the referred claim, the defaced cheque was brought to light.

13.It is strange that this note of 11.3.2002 (signed by three senior officers of the OP insurance company), makes no mention of the name of the concerned Development Officer, Mehernosh H Dubash. His affidavit evidence before this Commission says

On 9.3.2001, I sent cheque No.181456 dated 30.6.2000 to D.O. concerned which was water-stained/defaced; the same cheque was given by complainant to me in August 2000.I told the complainant that the said cheque cannot be encashed because it is water-stained and to take back such cheque but they failed to take the cheque back upto 9.3.2001 as such on the said date 9.3.2001 sent the cheque to Divisional Office of United India Insurance Co., Rohit Chambers, Janmabhoomi Marg, Foret, Mumbai-400001.

The same position is taken by the OP in the affidavit evidence of their Divisional Manager Mr S Gopalakrishnan-

It is submitted that Shri Mehernosh H. Dubash, Development Officer, on 9.3.2001 sent cheque No.181456 dated 30.6.2000 which was water-stained/defaced one.The said cheque was given by complainant to him in August 2000, the said cheque was immediately returned to him because the cheque was time-barred, invalid, irrelevant.

Thus, as per the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the OP, this cheque was given by the complainant to Mr Dubash in August 2000. Counsel for the complainant drew our attention to theletter of Mr Dubash himself addressed on 9.3.2001 to the Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. which clearly says that this cheque for Rs 34962, drawn on Dena Bank,being the premium for ATN packaging.Ltd. which was handed over to me in mutilated condition from Mr Dilip Shukhla HO (D) on or around 1stweek of August 2000.

It is therefore, very strange that the CLAIM NOTE hides the fact that

a.one of its signatories, Smt. Latha Sitaraman, had returned the defaced cheque to the sender, M H Dubash, Development Officer on 16.3.2001 saying that this is not relevant to us at this juncture.

b.It does not explain which officer had found the cheque in August 2000.

c.There is no explanation what had happened between August 2000 and March 2001.

d.There is no explanation why the claim was repudiated on 16.3.2001 when on the same day the defaced premium cheque was returned to the Development Officer asking him to explain why he had kept the cheque with him for such a long time.

e.There is no explanation why this note does not mention that the defaced cheque was actually given to Mr Dubash by one Mr Dilip Shukla of HO (D) in/around 1stweek of August 2000.

f.On the main question whether renewal premium was paid or not, the Note merely states that the department neither received the second cheque as claimed by the insured nor did it call for any.

As already noted, the counsel for the OP has chosen not to file any objections to these documents. He merely argued that the case of the complainant is based on forged documents. This is a plea taken in the written response to the complainant. However, the Counsel could not point to any evidence produced on behalf of the OP/Insurance Co. in support of this contention.

14.In this context, the internal Note of 5.3.2001 signed by Mr P.Subramanian, Administrative Officer,(filed by the complainant withMA/531/2010) gives extremely valuable information on the developments since 30.6.2000. The relevant paras read

The above insured was having original Fire Policy No.409/99 expiring on 01.07.2000. It is reported that they had sent premium cheque No.181456 dated 30.6.2000 for Rs.34962/- towards renewal.The said cheque was found to be defaced by water; so a fresh cheque No.939257 dated 30.6.2000 for the same amount, drawn on State Bank of India, was presented by the Insured to this Office.However, the Policy was not renewed by this Office as this cheque was also not traced out.

In the meanwhile, the Insured by FAX dated 14.7.2000 (received by this Office on 17.7.2000) intimated about the Flood loss. From the Claims Dept., a letter was sent to the Insured stating that the Policy was not renewed and asking for the proof of submission of renewal cheque to this Office.In response to this, they had submitted a copy of their letter dated 30.6.2000 addressed to our office enclosing a revised premium cheque No.939257 dated 30.6.2000 for Rs.34962/- (a copy of their letter forwarding the cheque is in the File).

His note ends with the recommendation that a decision can be taken after verifying all the facts. But, no evidence has been led on behalf of the OP to show what inquiry or verification was done which led to repudiation of the claim, ten days later on 16.3.2001.

15.CONCLUSIONS

In the foregoing paras we have carefully examined the evidence brought out through the correspondence and internal records of the OP company submitted by the complainant through three Miscellaneous Applications in 2010. As already observed, the OP has chosen not to file any objections to challenge their content. Considering them together with the evidence already led by the two sides, we arrive at the following conclusions

1.The primary burden of proof of the complainant has been discharged by establishing that the renewal premium was paid by cheque No. 939257 drawn on the State Bank of India on 30.6.2000. This is borne out by the following --

a.The rubber seal of the OP on the covering letter of the same day constitutes the acknowledgement. Additional documents produced by the complainant fully disprove the contention of the OP that the rubber seal should have carried the signature of the receiving official.

b.No evidence is produced by the OP in support of its allegation of forgery.

c.On behalf of the complainant, affidavit evidence of its employee Mr Ravi Ankush Chofekar, filed on 5.5.2003,says that he had himself delivered the cheque and the letter at United India Insurance Co office on 30.6.2000. Other than a bland denial in the affidavit of Mr S Gopalakrishnan, this has not been challenged by the OP.

d.Repeated reference in the records of the OP (produced by the complainant) to discovery of the defaced cheque of the same amount and same date, itself supports the claim of the complainant that another cheque was delivered on the same day, as the first was reportedly defaced.

2.Even after the Surveyor directly raised the question whether the policy had been renewed, there is no evidence of any effort on the part of the OP to find out whether the renewal premium had been received and if yes, in what manner.

3.In his affidavit evidence of 28.10.2003, M H Dubash, claims that the defaced cheque was given to him by the complainant in August 2000. This assertion is in direct contradiction of the claim in his letter of 9.3.2001. As per this letter, the cheque was handed over to himin mutilated conditionfrom Mr Dilip Shukhla HO (D) on or around 1stweek of August 2000.This written assertion destroys the credibility of his affidavit and thereby acceptability of the claim of the OP, that the defaced cheque was given by the complainant in August 2000.

4.Appointment of the surveyor and his assessment of the loss are a matter of record. Discovery of the defaced cheque is equally a matter of record of the OP. In this background, non production of any evidence that the OP had inquired into the claim of the complainant about delivery of the second cheque on 30.6.2000, cannot be overlooked. What makes it worse is that despite a full inquiry being recommended by its own officer (P Subramanian, Administrative Officer) the senior functionaries of the insurance company went ahead with the decision to repudiate the claim.

5.No evidence has been led by the OP to explain the basis for repudiation, except repeated assertions that premium had not been received. The affidavit evidence of Mr S Gopalakrishnan Divisional Manager of the OP insurance company, carries a categorical denial of receipt of cheque No. 939257 drawn on the State Bank Of India, on 30.6.2000 towards renewal premium. The affidavit also claims that the complainant was given proper opportunity to prove that he had ever given the premium cheque to the Opposite Party.The veracity of these claims is destroyed by OPs own internal record. As already noted, the NOTE of 5.3.2001 sent by Administrative Officer, P Subramanian, refers to the this very cheque and states in the opening para that it wasreceived but the policy was not renewed as the cheque was lost.Therefore, towards the end, his note recommendsif the premium has been collected but not accounted for by our office due to omission at our end, a suitable decision has to be taken for processing the claim.

16.In the light of the details considered in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that it is established by the evidence on record that the cheque No. 939257 drawn on the State Bank of India towards renewal premium was received in the OP/insurance company on 30.6.2000. If the OP, for whatever reason, failed to encash it, the responsibility for non-receipt of the amount therein, will rest with the OP and not with the complainant. For the same reason, we also hold that repudiation of the claim was not justified and amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

17.Consequently, Original Petition No.299 of 2001 is allowed.OP/United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay to the Complainant/ATN Packaging Pvt. Ltd. the amount as per the assessment of loss made by the Surveyor, after adjusting depreciation and compulsory excess.This shall also carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the Complaint.The entire sum shall be paid by the OP within three months.Failing this, interest shall be paid at 12% for the period of delay.No order as to costs.

.

(J. M. MALIK, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

.

(VINAY KUMAR)

MEMBER

S./-

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.3707 OF 2012

(From the order dated 10.07.2012in Appeal No. 1935/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through the Regional Manager, DRO-1, Kanchenjunga Building, 8thFloor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

Petitioner

Versus

Giriraj Prasad Meena S/o Ramjilal Meena (deceased) R/o, Village: Surajpura, Tehsil &District Dausa, Rajasthan

Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate

Pronounced on :20thNovember, 2012

ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.Ramjilal Meena, since deceased and father of the complainant Sh. Giriraj Prasad Meena obtained a Public Personal Accident Policy for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a period of 15 years w.e.f. 29.01.1999 to 28.01.2014 from United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner/OP.It is alleged by the complainant that Gohara, a poisonous insect had bitten Ramjilal while he was working in his fields at Gola Ki Dhani on 13.03.2009.On 05.04.2009, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Dausa issued a Medical Certificate that Ramjilal died due to insect bite.It is contended that he issued the certificate without following the due procedure.The complainant filed the claim, which was repudiated on 30.11.2009.The District Forum dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on 20.10.2011.

2.Aggrieved by that order, appeal was preferred before the State Commission, which accepted the appeal and granted Rs. 5,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint in favour of the complainant.The complainant was also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings from the Insurance Company.

3.This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner Insurance Co.The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has two prongs.He highlighted the fact that no postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted.He contended that the absence of autopsy report, a clear picture does not begin to jell.He explained that the evidence adduced by the complainant hinges upon the certificates given by the Doctor, SDM and Panchnama.Again the names of the Panchas were never disclosed.He argued that the evidence adduced by the complainant is of frail character and does not carry much value.

4.Secondly, he also pointed out that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, postmortem report should have been produced to know the actual cause of death.Copy of FIR must be produced within one month as per requirements of the policy.Again, there is no evidence, which may go to show that Ramjilal bequeathed insured amount exclusively in favour of the complainant.

5.All these arguments are bereft of merit.This is a peculiar case.There is one certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Govt. District Hospital, Dausa dated 07.04.2009.English version of the said certificate runs as follows:-

This is to certify that Sh. Ramjilal Meena S/o Sh. Panchu Lal Meena R/o village Surajpura Tehsil Dausa District Dausa was under my treatment for following accident Death occurred may be due to insect bite

The subject treatment given for the period 13.03.2009 to 13.03.2009 by me under my dispensary Dausa.

In accident the following injury happened

Death occurred due to insect bite

6.There is another certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in case of death, which is reproduced as follows:-

On the basis of investigation I certify that Sh. Ramji Lal S/o Sh. Panch Ram Meena R/o Village Surajpura, Tehsil, Dausa, District Dausa died on 13.03.2009 at 8.00 hrs. at village Surajpura Tehsil Dausa District Dausa. Cause of death

Due to bite by a poisonous Ghoyra while working on field.

7.In view of these certificates, non-production of postmortem report pales into insignificance.It is but clear that the deceased was taken to the Govt. hospital wherein he died due to this accident.By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that he died naturally.The question of lodging FIR in this particular case does not possibly arise because matter was conducted and enquiry was made by the S.D.M. himself.Dispute if any, between the LRs of the deceased is a matter per se between them and without any evidence or objection the petitioner should not raise this question.

8.Last but not the least the Consumer Court acts under a benevolent legislation where the claim of consumers are not to be brushed aside on frivolous grounds.

9.The revision petition is dismissed.

....J

(J.M. MALIK)

PRESIDING MEMBER

.

(VINAY KUMAR)

MEMBER

Jr/8

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.1372 OF 2012

(From the order dated 04.07.2011 in F.A. No.1175/2005 of the Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula)

TheKhanpurKalanCo-op.Tpt. Society Ltd.

Petitioner-Complainant

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Sonepat Through its Regional Manager, LIC Bldg., 2ndFloor,JagadhriRoad,AmbalaCantt., Haryana.

Respondent-opposite party

BEFORE

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,

PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner:Mr.AlokSangwan, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON20thNOVEMBER,2012

O R D E R

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer DisputesRedressalCommission,Panchkula(in short, the State Commission) inF.A. No.1175/2005Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.KhanpurKalanCo-op.Tpt. Society Ltd. by which while accepting appeal, order of District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

2.Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant got his bus HR-46/5070 insured from the respondent/opposite party for 8.10.1999 to 7.10.2000.Bus was stolen during the intervening night of 12/13.5.2000.An FIR was lodged on 2.6.2000 with Police Station.The complainant filed claim with the opposite party and as per surveyors report, claim was repudiated, hence, complaint was filed.Opposite party contested the complaint and learned District Forum vide order dated 23.5.2005 allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to make payment of Rs.2,60,000/- along with 12% interest per annum against which respondent filed appeal which was accepted by impugned order.

3.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 147 days was caused in filing revision petition due to non-availability of record of Complaint No. 168 of 2005 Sube Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., hence,delaymay be condoned.The impugned order was passed on 4.7.2011 and copy of order was sent to the petitioner on 9.8.2011, but petitioner has mentioned in his application forcondonationof delay that he received copy of order from the office of the Counsel on 18.9.2011. It was further submitted that petitioner approached Counsel at New Delhi on 17.10.2011 who asked him to get copy of complaint titledSubeSingh Vs. New India Assur