LAWS(NCD)-2013-5-84

PAHUCHI LAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Decided On May 24, 2013
Pahuchi Lal Appellant
V/S
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Complainants against the impugned order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 3248/SC/ 2006 - Pahuchi Lal & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner 's/complainant 's tractor no. UP 64 B 4660 was insured by respondent/OP for a period of one year commencing from 9.10.2001 to 8.10.2002. On 30.6.2002, tractor was looted near the bridge of Arvind River. Report was lodged and after observing all the formalities, OP/respondent paid Rs.2,33,000/ - instead of Rs.2,80,000/ - to the petitioners and not made balance payment of Rs.47,000/ - Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complaint was filed before the District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that Rs.2,33,000/ - was given as full and final satisfaction. It was also alleged that previously, Complaint No.306 of 2004 was filed in which, aforesaid amount was given and now petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground of full and final payment and further observed that earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 9.9.2005. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) PETITIONERS filed revision petition along with application for condonation of delay. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission passed impugned order on 29.3.2007, whereas revision has been filed on 30.1.2008 meaning thereby, the revision petition has been filed almost after 10 months. In the application for condonation of delay, he has given ground for condonation of delay as under: