PRAVEEN DALAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Praveen Dalal, who is also the original complainant in this case. The three respondents in this revision petition were opposite parties no. 1, 2 & 3 before the District Forum. The parties, therefore, have been referred to according to their status before the District Forum.

(2.) Briefly stated the complainant got her truck bearing registration no. HR-63-A-2965 insured with the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 for the period from 18.10.2006 to 17.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.12 lakh. As per the averments, this truck was stolen by some unknown person in the intervening night of 14th and 15th April 2007. The matter was reported with the Police Station under F.I.R. No. 104 dated 15.04.2007 but insurance company was informed after a period of more than 17 days. When the complainant submitted her claim before the OP Insurance Company the same was repudiated vide letter dated 28.08.2008 which led the complainant/petitioner to file the complaint in question. On notice, the OP Insurance Company filed written statement and took the plea that while the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 14 / 15.04.2007, intimation to the Insurance Company was given in this regard after a period of more than 17 days and as such the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Insurance Company pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. Both the parties led evidence in support of their stands before the District Forum. Keeping in view the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions made during the course of hearing, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 21.06.2011 in complaint no. 523/2008. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission (for short 'the State Commission'), which vide its impugned order dated 30.08.2011 in FA No. 1156/2011 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the complainant. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard arguments of Shri K.P.S. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 & 2. None has appeared for respondent no. 3, i.e., the Bank which had financed the purchase of the truck.