RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. THAKUR SINGH R/O VILLAGE BHATT MAJRA P.O. URNAI, TEHSIL PEHOWA,DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA HARYANA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE 3,MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.10.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1192/2014, "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar," vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 21.10.2014, passed by the District Forum Kurukshetra, partly allowing the complaint No. 24/2013, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Rajesh Kumar is the owner of a Tata Indica Car, which was insured with the opposite party (OP), National Insurance Company Limited for the period 19.05.2011 to 18.05.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,69,040.00. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 01.06.2011, at about 10:15 PM, the said car was snatched from the father of the complainant, Thakur Singh by three persons when he was going to meet his relatives from village Bhatt Majra to village Nanehra. An FIR under section 394 Penal Code was lodged with the Police Station Sadar, Ambala and an intimation was also given to the insurance company. A claim for the theft of the car under the insurance policy was also lodged with the OP insurance company, but the same was not settled. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the opposite party to release a sum of Rs. 2,69,040.00 under the policy, along with interest @18% p.a. and a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs. 11,000.00 as litigation expenses.

(3.) The OP Insurance company resisted the complaint by filing written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the insured had taken a private car package policy from them, but he violated the terms and conditions of the said policy, because the vehicle in question was being used as a taxi for hire purposes. The said fact was clearly made out from the FIR registered with the Police. The Insurance Company discovered the above fact upon investigation into the case. They wrote a letter dated 12.10.2011 to the insured to explain why his claim should not be repudiated. However, the complaint failed to send any reply to that letter, following which, the claim was repudiated.