(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission) dated 16.11.2015 in first appeal No.690 of 2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the District Forum, Jind.
(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner Ramesh Kaushik filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, Jind alleging that he is partner of M/s Parakh Cassette Industries. Said firm purchased Tata Indigo CS Diesel (LX) car with temporary registration No.HR-99-HB (TP) 5070 from opposite party No.2. The vehicle was insured in the name of the firm with opposite party No.1 insurance company. It is the case of the complainant that due to some technical reason the finance company was not inclined to sanction loan for purchase of said vehicle in the name of the firm, therefore, the complainant applied for loan in his own name. Thereafter, the complainant applied for change of ownership in the record of the opposite party No.2 dealer. The complainant also requested the agent of the opposite party No.1 for transferring the insurance cover from the name of the firm in his name and paid for the requisite transfer changes to the agent. The subject vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 21/22.7.2011 from in front of the house of the complainant in Ajmer Basti, Bhiwani Road, Jind. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR 479 dated 22.7.2011 under Sec. 379 IPC, police station Jind. The complainant lodged the insurance claim but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the insurance was not in his name. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner filed the consumer complaint.
(3.) Consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite party No.1. In the written statement the insurance company justified the repudiation on two grounds i.e. intimation of theft was given after a gap of 12 days which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. It was also pleaded that on the date of theft the petitioner was not having any insurable interest in the subject vehicle.