RAHUL RANKA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act') assails the order dtd. 15/10/2017 in Appeal No. 674 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 1, Jaipur, Rajasthan (in short, the 'State Commission') setting aside the order dtd. 9/2/2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 85 of 2014 which had upheld the complaint filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The brief conspectus of facts, as per the petitioner/complainant, are that the insured his Maruti Swift car no. RJ06 CA 7068 for Rs.4,01,000.00 with the respondent from 28/7/2010 to 27/8/2011. The vehicle was stolen on 27/8/2011 from the limits of Police Station, Gacchipura, Nagore, Rajasthan. FIR No. 30/2011 was lodged on 3/5/2011 under Sec. 379 IPC and a report was filed before the Court that the vehicle could not be traced which was accepted. The insurance company was informed immediately, and a claim filed before it which was not settled. Therefore, a legal notice was sent on 7/4/2012 which was replied to though settlement of claim was not done. A complaint before the District Forum was therefore filed seeking the insured amount along with compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00. On contest, the complaint was ordered by the District Forum in petitioner's favour concluding that there was deficiency in service on part of the respondent/opposite party. On appeal, the State Commission set aside this order on the grounds that the FIR was lodged after 6 days of the theft thereby violating condition no. 1 of the Policy and that Policy condition no. 4 was also violated since the petitioner failed to ensure the safety of the vehicle leading to its loss by theft. The present petition assails this order.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.