SAGAR KUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act') for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.3.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission'), vide which (Appeal No.FA-11/649) filed by the Respondent/Opposite party against order dated 1.8.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, 'District Forum') was allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner is engaged in the business of tours and travels. Being owner of a Tata Sumo car he had obtained the insurance on 30.6.1991 of the car for an amount of Rs.5.140 lac for a period of one year from respondent company. On 25.12.2006 around 10 p.m., the vehicle was stolen and petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Sector-58, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar on 27.12.2006, and informed the respondent about the incident of theft. Thereafter, petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent and filed alongwith it the FIR claiming Rs.5.1 lac. Respondent repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had informed it after six months about the incident, by sending a letter on 27.6.2007. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short,'District Forum') alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent with a prayer that respondent be directed to pay him Rs.4,68,111/-towards the costs of vehicle, Rs. 98,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.

(3.) Respondent opposed the claim and filed the written version stating that it was informed for the first time on 27.6.2007 by the petitioner about the theft of the vehicle i.e. after six months of alleged theft, which being in breach of Condition No.1 of the Policy. Thus, petitioner was not entitled for indemnification.