NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs LICHMA DEVI

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal No.2088/2008 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lichma Devi by which while allowing appeal order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that complainant respondent got his Maruti car RJ31CA 0049 insured with opposite party petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,75,706/- for the period of one year from 26.4.2006 to 25.4.2007. On 29.6.2006 while coming from Delhi to Pilibanga, there was sparking beneath the desk board as a result of which, there was a fire and car war burnt totally. FIR was lodged and intimation was given to opposite party who appointed surveyor but opposite party repudiated claim by letter dated 6.12.2006 on the ground that fire occurred due to bursting of cylinder which was in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and driver Mangal Singh was having only learning licence which was not a valid licence. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and justified repudiation for the reasons mentioned in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay Rs.2,06,780/- with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs.7000/- as cost of litigation against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

[3] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there is delay of only 33 days in filing the revision petition which was not intentional, delay may be condoned. Learned counsel for the opposite party has not made any serious objections. In such circumstances, as there is delay of only 33 days, I condone the delay.

[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as driver of the vehicle was possessing only learning licence and LPG kit was not permitted in the car and there was delay of 18 days in intimation to opposite party, opposite party rightly repudiated the claim but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal hence revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

[6] As far LPG kit is concerned, perusal of insurance policy issued by the opposite party reveals that insured had already declared about CNG/LPG kit. In such circumstances, complainant was entitled to use LPG kit. There is nothing on record to substantiate that cylinder busted. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal.

[7] As far learning driving licence is concerned, learned State Commission rightly observed that person holding learner''s licence can drive the vehicle and on this ground opposite party committed deficiency in repudiating claim.

[8] As far delay of 18 days in intimation to Insurance Co. is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me any document by which it can be inferred that there was delay of 18 days in intimation to Insurance Co.

[9] I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

[10] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.