Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Revision Petition No. 2538 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, April 29, 2014 (case Lakhan Lal Keshari Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Vikram Patralekh, Advocate and For Respondents: Naveen Kumar, Advocate
PresidentK.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and B.C. Gupta, Member
Resolution DateApril 29, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 83/2011, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhan Lal Keshri by which, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner jeep which was insured by OP/respondents was robbed by miscreants on 7.9.2008 during the currency of insurance policy. Matter was reported to the Police and to the OP and claim was preferred before the OP, but OP repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was used for hire/reward against the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 3,52,250 along with 8% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation. OP filed appeal before the State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order modified order of the District Forum and directed OP to pay 75% of the sum insured instead of full amount and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

  2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

  3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that there was no evidence regarding use of vehicle for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT