ANIL U PANDEY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12.9.2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State dismissing appeal against the order dated 21.3.2001 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) COMPLAINT was filed, inter alia, alleging that in August 1997, petitioner approached respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 to arrange finance for a Tata Sumo to be purchased from M/s. Autoriders (India) Ltd. and the latter assured to arrange it from respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3. On 5.9.1997, petitioner took delivery of a Tata Sumo from M/s. Autoriders (India) Ltd., petitioner handed over a cheque towards insurance premium to respondent No. 2 who was agent of respondent No. 1 opposite party No. 1. Covering Note bearing No. 55013 was issued by respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 on 28.8.1997. It was further alleged that on 8.9.1997, when petitioner was returning from Shirdi to Bombay, Tata Sumo met with an accident. Concerned Authorities were immediately informed of the accident. On claim being lodged, the respondent No. 1 repudiated it by the letter dated 18.9.1997 on the ground that neither any insurance policy had been issued nor premium received. Alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by respondent No. 1 and joint written version by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) WHILE dismissing complaint/appeal Fora below strongly relied on the decision in Pradeep Kumar fain v. Citi Bank and Another, 1996 (6) SCC 361.