NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BRANCH OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.10.2010, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 1202/2010, "National Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance company ') versus Anandilal & Ors. ", vide which while dismissing the appeal, order dated 07.05.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bundi in consumer complaint no. 49/2009 was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a vehicle tractor -trolley, bearing no. RJ -08/RA -0012 was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company in the joint name of Anandi Lal and Chittar Lal vide policy no. 370801/47/05/9700001847 for the period from 17.03.2006 to 16.03.2007 for a sum insured of Rs.4,16,400/ - on payment of premium of Rs.5293/ -. The vehicle was allegedly stolen on the intervening night of 10.07.2006 and 11.07.2006, when it was stated to be parked outside a hotel at village Budhpura. An FIR no. 418/2006 dated 21.07.2006 under section 379 IPC was lodged with the local Police. The intimation to the Insurance Company is stated to have been given on 1.02.2007. The insurance company repudiated the claim filed by the complainant on 26.08.2008, based on the report of the investigator who stated that theft had not taken place. A complaint was filed before the District Forum. Vide order dated 07.05.2010, the District Forum directed the insurance company to pay the cost of tractor -trolley within a period of one month, along with Rs.1,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/ - as litigation charges. An appeal filed by the insurance company before the State Commission was dismissed by them vide impugned order dated 04.10.2010. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had already deposited the amount awarded by the District Forum and hence, there was no justification for the continuance of the present petition.