Lakhan Pal vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1677 of 2009 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakhan Pal by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s Truck No. 38/H-5368 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 28.10.2003 to 27.10.2004. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 14/15.3.2004. Complainant lodged FIR NO. 198 dated 21.3.2004 with the concerned police station and intimation was also given to OP. OP repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted claim. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses. OP/respondent filed appeal before the learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order while accepting the appeal dismissed the complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner promptly lodged FIR and intimated to the OP/respondent, even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

THIS revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of 60 days delay. Apparently, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. It is an admitted case that the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 14/15.3.2004. FIR No. 198 was lodged on 21.3.2004, i.e., after 7 days of theft and intimation to OP/respondent was given on 7.4.2004, i.e., after 23 days of occurrence. Learned State Commission has rightly observed that there was violation of the conditions of the policy, as the complainant had failed to inform the Insurance Company immediately after the alleged theft. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the basis of judgement passed by this Commission in Devendra Singh Vs. NIA and Ors. - III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC).

THIS Commission in F.A. No. 321 of 2005 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was delay of 2 days in lodging FIR and delay of 9 days in giving intimation to Insurance Company.

IN the present case, as there was delay of 7 days in lodging FIR and delay of 23 days in intimating the Insurance Company, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.