NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by the Learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1182 of 2013 New India Assurance Co. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent's vehicle PB 10 CB 1756 was insured with OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 5.2.2010 to 4.2.2011. Vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 4-5/1/2011 regarding which, FIR was lodged on 6.1.2011, but vehicle could not be traced. Claim was lodged with OP which was repudiated. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant made false declaration in the proposal form to the fact that no claim was taken by him during previous year's policy and claimed 25% no claim bonus and obtained policy from OP. As insurance policy was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, he breached principle of utmost good faith and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to settle claim on non-standard basis and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inpsite of proof of obtaining insurance policy by complainant by fraud and misrepresentation regarding no claim bonus, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.