(1.) Revision petition no. 3974 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment dated 14.12.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 1848 of 2006
(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the TATA truck bearing no. MH 34 M 296 owned by the petitioner was insured with the respondent insurance company for the period 26.09.2003 to 25.09.2004 for an amount of Rs.5,25,000.00. The petitioner was a Government contractor to transport the food grains from Government godown to the ration shops at various places in Chandrapur District. On 17.11.2003 the said vehicle was in the queue before the State Government warehouse at Padoli for loading food grains. The driver of the truck namely, Anil Madavi left the truck in the queue by keeping the keys in the cabin of the truck and went home for the night. When he returned on the next day morning, he found that his truck was missing. He searched nearby and made enquiries but could not trace the truck. He, therefore, reported the matter to the insurance company and also lodged an FIR with police, however, the truck could not be traced out. The petitioner filed an insurance claim with the insurance company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the petitioner had violated the policy conditions and had not taken adequate precaution for safeguarding the truck. Feeling dissatisfied with the said repudiation, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Chandrapur claiming Rs.5,25,000/- the value of the truck with 18% interest from 01.04.2004 and Rs.20,000.00 for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000.00 towards cost of proceedings.
(3.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur ('the District Forum') vide its impugned order dated 29.06.2006 allowed the complaint on non-standard basis as "they were of the view that repudiation of the insurance claim of applicant consumer 100% by the insurance company was improper and thus allowed the complaint under non-standard basis", and gave the following order: