SATISH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana ('State Commission' for short) in First Appeal No.363 of 2011 by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent / opposite party and reversed the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the District Forum, Rohtak and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) There is a delay of 73 days in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The contents of this application are vague and no explanation is offered in support of the request for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed on 23.12.2011 but he received a copy thereof on 27.4.2012 and thereafter he has filed the revision petition on 20.7.2012, i.e., within a period of 90 days which is the prescribed period of limitation. In view of this, he submitted that there is no delay. Still in para 3 of his application, the petitioner has said that even though there is no delay in filing the revision petition from the date of the receipt of the order, he has submitted the application for condonation because if the date of decision, i.e, 23.12.2011 is taken into consideration, there is a delay in filing the revision petition. Explaining the delay, the petitioner has stated that the appeal was decided ex parte in the absence of the petitioner and, therefore, he was not aware about the actual date of decision. The petitioner, however, has not specified as to how and in what manner he actually received the copy of the impugned order. In absence of any factual indication in this regard, his claim of having received the impugned order on 27.4.2012 cannot be accepted. On the other hand, perusal of certified copy of the impugned order placed on record, we find that as per the endorsement, impugned order was delivered/dispatched to the petitioner on 8.2.2012. If the impugned order was dispatched to the address of the petitioner on 8.2.2012 by post and in the natural course of circumstances, it must have been delivered to the petitioner within few days from the date of the dispatch. In the circumstances, it is clear that there is a delay in filing the revision petition for which no satisfactory or convincing explanation has been given by the petitioner. The revision petition thus is liable for dismissal on this ground alone.

(3.) As regards the merits, the petitioner had insured his Escort Tractor bearing Registration No.HR-12D-2272 with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. for the period from 7.1.2008 to 6.1.2009. During the period of insurance cover, the tractor was stolen on 7.9.2008 for which the petitioner lodged the FIR in the concerned police station on 8.10.2008. Intimation about the loss of tractor was given to the Insurance Co. but when the petitioner submitted his claim, it was denied by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The respondent/opposite party contested the complaint on notice by the District Forum and in its written statement it took the plea that the petitioner/complainant had failed to inform the Insurance Co. well within the time regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle and by doing so, he had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, therefore, he was not entitled for insurable benefits. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.