LAWS(NCD)-2015-3-40

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KAJOD MEENA

Decided On March 17, 2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Kajod Meena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 283/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kajod Meena and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no.1 purchased truck no. RJ -25RA -2141 after getting loan from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 and it was insured with OP No. 1/petitioner. During currency of insurance, on 29.8.2008 when vehicle was parked for bringing diesel it was stolen. Complainant intimated to the Police on telephone on the same day. On 30.08.2008, complainant went to lodge report, but report was not taken by Police. Thereafter, complainant filed complaint before Court and report was registered by Police through court. Complainant lodged claim with OP No. 1 which was avoided. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complain t was filed before Court after 9 days and FIR was registered after 24 days and OP was intimated on 7.10.2008 whereas he should have been intimated immediately. It was further submitted that driver left vehicle with key unattended at a lonely place. It was further submitted that driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of incident and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay insured amount of tractor with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/ - and Rs. 1000/ - as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) NONE appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte