LUCKY MITTAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 12 of 2012 - The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Lucky Mittal & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his vehicle Toyata Qualis HR -51 -J -0537 insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 15.7.2006 to 14.7.2007. On the intervening night of 15/16.4.2007, vehicle was stolen and FIR was lodged. Intimation was given to OP. Required documents were submitted to OP, but OP repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as vehicle has been recovered by police, the claim was not payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/ - as value of the vehicle and Rs.5,000/ - for mental harassment along with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned District Forum vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first complaint was filed within limitation; even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground that complaint was time barred; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.