HIND AUTO CENTER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/complainant firm is a dealer in the business of selling tyres of various manufacturers like MRF, Birla, J.K, Bridgestone, etc. It had insured its stock with the respondent Insurance Company/OP for the period from 21.1.2003 to 20.1.2004. In the midnight of 17/ 18th January, 2004,217 tyres worth Rs. 3,83,000 were stolen from the godown of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged an FIR bearing No. 21 on 22.1.2004 with the local police station. Thereafter, the petitioner/complaint approached the respondent Insurance Company but his claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 10.12.2004 on the basis of survey report. The petitioner/complainant, therefore, filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the District Forum which was opposed by the OP/ respondent Insurance Company by filing its reply in which it was stated that the surveyor M/s. Duggal Gupta Associates has submitted their survey report in which it has been brought out that only an attempt for theft had been made but there was no actual theft committed and as such the claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the Insurance Company On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum vide its order dated 9.3.2012 accepted the complaint by granting the following reliefs:

(2.) Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the respondent /opposite party Insurance Co. filed Appeal No. 519 of 2012 whereas the petitioner/complainant filed Appeal No. 720 of 2012 for grant of interest @ 18% p.a. on the awarded amount. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 19.7.2012 allowed the Appeal No. 519 of 2012 filed by the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Simultaneously, it dismissed Appeal No. 720 of 2012 filed by the complainant. It is against this impugned order that the present revisionpetitionhas been filed by the petitioner/ complainant.

(3.) We have heard learned Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and learned Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent. We have also perused the record of the case.