Case nº Revision Petition No. 4111 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 16/08/2011 in Appeal No. 1643/2006 of the State Commission Haryana) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, September 11, 2012 (case Tara Chand Verma Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd)

Judge:For Appellant: Mr. Bhupender M. Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi
President:Mr. R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. S.K. Naik, Member
Defense:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b)
Resolution Date:September 11, 2012
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


  1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1643/2006, original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent insurance company against the order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, in complaint no. 97 / 2004 by which order the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the insurance company to make payment of Rs.76,552/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of accident till its realisation besides a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The State Commission going by the pleas put forth by the insurance company has, however, reversed the said findings and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on twin reasons. Firstly, there was a doubt about the date and time when the car in question had met with an accident and secondly, intimation as required by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was not given to the insurance company immediately after the accident.

  2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. The fact and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders passed by the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The claim was repudiated primarily on the ground that intimation of the accident was given after more than one month of the accident which amounted to breach of the condition no. 1 of the insurance policy, which envisaged for an immediate intimation about the circumstances in which the accident took place.

  3. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record. In this connection, he has invited our attention to a communication dated 01.09.2003 professed as intimation letter addressed to...

To continue reading