UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO. 401, 4TH FLOOR, SANGAM COMPLEX, 127, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI Vs. ROOP LAL DANGI S/O. SHRI GALLA JI, R/O. VILLAGE FATEHPURA, TAHSIL MALVI, UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent was the owner of trailer bearing No. RJ-27 GA 8478. The respondent insured trailer with the petitioner insurance company for the period 20.05.2012 to 19.05.2013. Insured Declared Value of the trailer was Rs.16,50,000.00. It is the case of the complainant that on the night of 13.11.2012 the trailer was parked near Manglam Petrol Pump, Village Fatehpura, Village Mavli, Udaipur, Rajasthan. On the morning of 15.11.2012, the trailer was found missing. The Police Control Room was intimated about the theft on the same day and FIR No. 274 was registered at the concerned Police Station. It is further the case of the petitioner that complainant intimated the manager of the Opposite Party insurance company about the theft on the same day by calling on his mobile phone. Written intimation was sent on 22.11.2012. The insurance claim was filed. The opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on two counts ; (a) that the theft was reported to the insurance company with the delay of seven days in violation of the stipulation of the insurance contract ; (b) that the insured complainant failed to take necessary steps to protect the interest of the insurance company. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the insurance claim, the respondent filed consumer complaint in the concerned District Forum.

(2.) The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence came to the conclusion that repudiation of insurance claim was not justified and it amounted to deficiency in service. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as under :

(3.) Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner insurance company preferred an appeal. The State Commission Rajasthan on re-appreciation of evidence did not find fault with the order of the District Forum. The State Commission accordingly dismissed the complaint. The petitioner opposite party therefore has come in revision.