AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 83/2011 - United India Insurance Vs. Lakhan Lal Keshri by which, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner jeep which was insured by OP/respondents was robbed by miscreants on 7.9.2008 during the currency of insurance policy. Matter was reported to the Police and to the OP and claim was preferred before the OP, but OP repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was used for hire/reward against the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,52,250/ - along with 8% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.10,.000/ - as compensation. OP filed appeal before the State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order modified order of the District Forum and directed OP to pay 75% of the sum insured instead of full amount and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that there was no evidence regarding use of vehicle for hire/reward, learned State Commission committed error in reducing claim to 75%; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
PERUSAL of report lodged by driver with Police Station makes it clear that on payment of Rs.1000/ - by the passengers as fare the passengers were taken by the driver of the insured vehicle to Deoghar and in the meanwhile, something was given to him for eating by the passengers and on account of greediness, he could not drive vehicle and stopped the vehicle which was taken away by the passengers. Thus, it becomes clear that at the time of accident the vehicle was used for hire/reward and learned State Commission has not committed any error in reducing the claim to 75% on non -standard basis. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.