V MAHABOOB BASHA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 13.04.2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission'). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Respondent insurance company and dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioners before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa, (in short, 'the District Forum').

(2.) The facts of the case are that the first Petitioner (first complainant before the District Forum) purchased a motor vehicle which was insured with the Respondent insurance company with the IDV of Rs. 5,44,000/- for the period 21.06.2004 to 20.06.2005. The vehicle met with an accident on 04.05.2005 and sustained damage. The first Petitioner informed the police as well as the insurance company and got the vehicle repaired at the cost of Rs. 1,47,092/-. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the first Petitioner on the ground that he had sold the vehicle to the second complainant before the date of the accident. This led the first Petitioner, along with the second Petitioner, to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, by its order dated 28.02.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent insurance company to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,36,092/-towards the insurance claim, Rs. 2000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1000/- towards cost. However, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal of the insurance company by holding that the first complainant/petitioner could not have claimed the insurance amount because he was no more the owner of the vehicle, having sold the vehicle before the date of accident. On the other hand, the second complainant could also not claim the insurance amount because the insurance policy had not been transferred in his name before the date of the accident. The State Commission also observed that in arriving at its conclusion, the District Forum had relied upon a decision pertaining to a third party liability which was not relevant to the present case.

(3.) The revision petition has been filed after a delay of 200 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The reasons cited in the application as explanation for this in ordinate delay are as under: