SAJID KHAN Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed with the finding that the insured vehicle, at the time of its theft, was being used without registration.

(2.) Appellant owned Mahindra XYLO -E -2 Eagle CRDE 2WD, 8 seater, which was insured for carriage of passengers and goods, with the respondent, in the sum of Rs.6,41,270/ -. Policy was effective from 25.03.2009 to 24.03.2010. On 06.06.2009, vehicle was stolen from the parking site of a hotel at Paonta Sahib, where it had been taken by the driver engaged by the appellant, for dropping of two passengers, on payment of Rs.1,100/ -. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent nine days after occurrence of the theft. Respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven without registration and route permit and also there was delay of nine days in apprising the respondent of the incident of theft, and all these acts of omission/commission constituted breach of conditions of policy as also breach of law.

(3.) Appellant felt aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,08,950/ -, on account of insurance money, and also to pay Rs.75,000/ - as compensation, besides seeking litigation expenses.