ABDUL REHMAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.06.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1403/2009, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Abdul Rehman" vide which, while accepting appeal, the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, allowing the consumer complaint No. 186/2007 was set aside and the said consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant got his vehicle Tata 1613 SE, bearing registration No. HR 55 B 8969, insured with the respondent/OP Insurance Company for the period from 14.06.2004 to 13.06.2005. it has been stated that the said vehicle got stolen on 09.06.2005 during the subsistence of the policy. An FIR No. 144 dated 8.11.2005 was lodged with the local police and an intimation was given to the Insurance Company also. However, when the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim, the consumer complaint in question was filed before the District Forum, requesting for payment of compensation/damages amounting to Rs. 8.25 lakh plus Rs. 15 lakh as compensation for mental harassment. The respondent/OP took the stand, however, that the said complaint was not maintainable as the FIR was got registered about five months after the date of alleged incident. Moreover, intimation about the theft was never given to the Insurance Company. The District Forum vide their order dated 11.08.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/OP to pay a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. However, an appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was allowed vide impugned order dated 12.06.12, vide which the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of admission hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a copy of letter dated 09.06.2005 addressed to the local Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station, saying that intimation about the theft had been given immediately to the Police after the incident took place. However, the Police took an abnormal time of about 5 months in registering the FIR for which the petitioner/complainant could not be held liable. The learned counsel further stated that intimation about the alleged theft was orally given to the Insurance Company. The complainant approached the OP many times, but they intentionally harassed the complainant and did not satisfy his insurance claim.