LAWS(NCD)-2016-12-56

PRADEEP SHARMA S/O SHRI B.L SHARMA ANURADHA GALI ABOVE DAYAL SALES, GUNA M.P. Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. AND ANOTHER HIG 10.1ST FLOOR SHIVAJI NAGAR, OPP PRAGATI PETROL PUMP BHOPAL M.P.

Decided On December 20, 2016
Pradeep Sharma S/O Shri B.L Sharma Anuradha Gali Above Dayal Sales, Guna M.P. Appellant
V/S
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. And Another Hig 10.1St Floor Shivaji Nagar, Opp Pragati Petrol Pump Bhopal M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2706/07 - Pradeep Sharma Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, appeal was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner having shop of medicines obtained policy from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 for the period from 6.9.2003 to 5.9.2004. Shop got fire on 15.10.2003 and loss was caused to the shop. Claim was submitted to OP which was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and denied insurance of shop and it was further pleaded that surveyor on conducting inspection found medicines of expired date. In spite of request, complainant failed to provide requisite documents. Address of shop was different from address provided in insurance policy; so, claim was repudiated on 13.9.2007 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 13,370.00 with 6% p.a. interest along with Rs. 600.00 as cost of proceedings. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,000.00 and cost of Rs.1,000.00 was allowed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

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