DEVENDER KUMAR VERMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 386/2010, "Devender Kumar Verma versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., " by which, while dismissing appeal, order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalaon, dismissing the complaint no. 146/2007 , was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant Devender Kumar Verma bought a Mahindra Jeep 2 WD for Rs.3,60,000/ - on 07.01.1998 and got it insured with the OP Oriental Insurance Co. by paying annual premium of Rs.11,264/ -, bearing insurance policy no. 1998 -1008 dated 08.01.98 and cover note number 484981. On 16.11.1998, at about 8 p.m., four unknown persons are stated to have looted the said jeep, intimation of which was given to the Police and case crime No. nil / 98 u/s 328/394 IPC was got registered at P.S. Kotwali Orai and after investigation, final report was filed in the court of Sub -Judge Urai, bearing criminal case no. 41/2001 and the court accepted the said report on 07.02.2001. It has been stated in the complaint that after the acceptance of final report by the Court, the complainant submitted application to the respondent on 09.02.2001 and the insurance claim was duly filed along with relevant documents. However, the said claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 28.03.2000 saying that the complainant did not complete the necessary formalities required. It was also stated that the complainant had sold out the said jeep or had misappropriated the same, so that the insurance company may not get any investigation done. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed as being time barred and also due to violation of the terms and conditions of insurance. An appeal against this order was also dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration of the arguments advanced before us.