Case nº Revision Petition No. 1317-1318 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 23/02/2015 in Appeal No. 297/2014 & 306/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) of NCDRC Cases, February 10, 2017 (case Ravinder Singh Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Ms. Savita Dhanda, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Amrreeta Swaarup, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Shanker, Advocate |
| President | Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member |
| Resolution Date | February 10, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
-
The complainant, Shri Ravinder Singh alleged that he purchased a tractor financed by Punjab National Bank (opposite party No.2) on 07-11-2005. It was insured with the opposite party No.1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the value of Rs.4,35,000/- for the period from 18-11-2005 to 17-11-2006. On 16-11-2006 at about 10:00 P.M., the complainant parked the tractor and trolley in front of hotel for taking dinner. After the dinner he came to know that tractor and trolley were found missing. He immediately reported the matter to SHO, Police Station, Meham but no action was taken. He also met higher officers like the DSP, but no avail. Then he filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham and as per Magistrate order, FIR No.342 dated 12/12/2006 under Section 377 of IPC was registered. The police investigated the matter and submitted untraced report before the Court of SDJM, Meham on 04-10-2007. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 about the claim but vide letter dated 29-05-2009, it was informed that the case was not involved under its Scheme. Hence, the opposite party repudiated the claim.
-
Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bhiwani. The District Forum, Bhiwani after considering the pleading and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay 50% of insured amount alongwith 12% interest from the date of survey report i.e. 24-12-2007.
-
The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
-
Hence, this revision petition.
-
We have heard the arguments of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner complainant vehemently argued that the tractor was stolen on 16-11-2006 while the insurance policy was subsisting upto 17-11-2006. It is pertinent to note that as per complainant the theft took place on 16-11-2006 but FIR was registered on 12-12-2006. The complainant made only oral submissions, not supported by any document. He had not explained the reasons for late intimation to the insurance company. As per the terms & conditions (No.1) of the insurance policy, it was to inform immediately to the insurance company. The relevant clause 1 is reproduced below:
Notice shall be given in writing to the company...
To continue reading
Request your trial