(1.) Shri Hanuman Prasad, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 28.8.1992 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal by which his appeal filed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the had purchased one Escort tractor in 1983. The Engine No. is 3109686 and Chasis No. B 0160668. For purchasing the tractor he had obtained loan from Punjab National Bank, Rewa Branch ( No. 2 herein and who was No. 2 in the complaint). The tractor got registration No. MBA 7133. The tractor was go insured with the present No. 1 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (who was Opposite party No. 1 in the complaint). No. 3 Shri Arshad Zafri was the Insurance Agent through whom the tractor was got insured. Insurance policy for the said tractor was taken by the Bank who had advanced the loan for its purchase and to whom it was hypdthecated. However, the premium paid was debited in the loan account of the . At the time of taking the insurance policy correct particulars were recorded in the policy. At the time of renewal of the insurance policy from 26th April, 1984 to 25th April, 1985 also correct particulars of the tractor were recorded in the policy. However, in the renewed policy from 25th April, 1985 only the name and particulars of the complainant, the name and model of tractor and the code number was correctly given in the policy but wrong chasis No. and engine number were given. In the renewed policy which was valid from 6th May, 1986 to 5th May, 1987 even the name of the tractor was changed from Escorts to international make. In the last insurance certificate from 24fh May, 1990 to 23rd May, 1991 the only correction that was made was about the actual make of the tractor i.e. Escorts was entered. The claimant never inspected the insurance papers as the Insurance Agent, i.e., No. 3 herein used to take the renewal premium from the Bank.
(2.) On 11th December, 1990 the tractor met with an accident and was damaged. The tractor was examined by the Insurance Company at the site of the accident. In respect of the damage to the tractor the Complainant filed claim under the Motor Vehicles Act as one truck had collided with the tractor.
(3.) The Insurance Company got the spot survey done twice and asked the Complainant not to get the tractor repaired as the Bhopal office was to make additional enquiry. Later on the claim of the Complainant was rejected by the Insurance Company on the ground that the tractor was not insured.