NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BALBIR BANSHTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') against the judgment dtd. 18/7/2012 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 367 of 2010.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent/ complainant took insurance cover from the petitioner/ opposite party, New India Assurance Company Ltd., in respect of his truck bearing registration no. HP 10B 2505 for a sum of Rs.4,20,000.00 on 19/4/2006 for a period of one year from 19/4/2006 to 18/4/2007. Premium was duly paid to the insurance company. On 24/7/2006, the said truck met with an accident at village Smmerkot, Tehsil Rohroo when the vehicle was on its way from Dalgnon to Delhi via Sungari. The accident was reported to the Police Station, Rohroo. Due to the said accident, the vehicle suffered extensive damage. Insurance company was also intimated about the accident. The insurance company appointed a spot surveyor who visited and inspected the spot of accident. Respondent was called upon to file a claim form. He submitted an estimate of repairs of Rs.1,50,000.00 to the insurance company. Subsequently, the bills of repairs were also forwarded to the insurance company. As no information regarding the claim was received from the insurance company, the respondent/ complainant repeatedly visited the office of the insurance company. He was repeatedly informed by the officials of the insurance company that the claim was under process. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 28/9/2007 on the ground that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was not valid. Hence, the respondent/ complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in short, 'the District Forum') and prayed for payment of:

(3.) The petitioner/ complainant (insurance company) contested the case before the District Forum by way of reply. The District Forum vide its order dtd. 27/7/2010 allowed the complaint on non-standard basis and held as under: