RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.11.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 298/2015, "Pratap Singh versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the District Forum Gurgaon dismissing the consumer complaint No. 431/2011, filed by the present respondent Pratap Singh, was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Pratap Singh was the registered owner of a Tavera vehicle, bearing registration No. DL-4B 3741, which was duly insured with the petitioner/Opposite Party (OP) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. with insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.4,30,000/- for the period 07.02.2009 to 06.02.2010. The said vehicle is stated to have been stolen on 2.04.2009 at about 1 PM near Sai Baba Mandir, Najafgarh, Delhi when the complainant had gone inside the temple to offer prayers. The complainant reported the matter to the Police at 3:15 PM on that date, i.e., 02.04.2009, on telephone no. '100'. However, the Police registered FIR No. 144 dated 06.05.2009 under section 379 IPC at PS, Najafgarh, South West Delhi. A DDR No. 28A dated 2.04.2009 was however, registered at the same Police Station. The complainant filed his claim with the OP Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated by them vide letter dated 25.03.2010. The complainant filed complaint against the Insurance Company with the Insurance Ombudsman, but the same was also dismissed on 2.05.2011 and it was observed in the order of the Ombudsman as follows:-

(3.) The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay him a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as IDV of the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- as loss suffered due to non-operation of the vehicle, being a commercial vehicle. A sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation against mental agony alongwith interest @18% p.a. on the amount was demanded from the OP and Rs.20,000/-as litigation cost. It was stated in the consumer complaint that the Ombudsman held that on the date of the theft, the vehicle was without permit and fitness. In fact, the vehicle was in garage due to some repair work and technical fault from 10.02.2009. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant by the mechanic on 02.04.2009 and when he was returning after taking possession of the vehicle from the mechanic, the vehicle was stolen near the temple, as stated already.