National Consumer Disputes Redressal
T.N. Das vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1669 OF 2012 (From the order dated 1.12.2012 in First Appeal No.584/2011(A/11/2865) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh T.N. Das S/o Sh. Kalyan Das R/o Namnakala Petitioner District Sarguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) Respondents 2. Protocol Officer/Collector Sarguja District Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Rahul Gupta S/o Sh. Krishna Kumar Gupta Prop. Kailsah Travels, Sangam Chowk Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 7th September, 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh). Vide its order, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint case No.167/2008 filed by the petitioner/complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had insured his Bolero vehicle bearing No.CG 15-B/2494 with the respondent No.1 Insurance Co. for a period between 19.10.2006 to 18.10.2007. The case of the petitioner before the District Forum was that the said vehicle suffered road accident on 9.4.2007 when it was being used by some police personnel during the visit of the Home Minister of the State. According to the complainant, the said vehicle was taken by the Protocol Officer, Collectors office, Sarguja for the purpose of the use of the police officer to follow the Home Minister of the State during a limited journey upto Balrampur. The vehicle suffered road accident on the way and was damaged extensively. After receiving intimation about the incident, the Insurance Co. appointed a surveyor who assessed loss of Rs.3,26,446/- but later on the Insurance Co. had not paid any amount to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Co., the consumer complaint in question was filed by the petitioner which was contested by the Insurance Co. on the ground that the said vehicle was used for hire or reward at the relevant time and owner of the vehicle had parted away with the possession of the vehicle without intimating the Insurance Co. and hence the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay any amount by way of compensation to the petitioner/complainant on account of damages to the insured vehicle in the road accident. After hearing the parties and considering the documents placed before it, the District Forum agreed with the defence taken by the Insurance Co. that the insured vehicle was taken on hire or reward by the Government and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order. As stated above, the State Commission vide its impugned order also upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
3. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In this case, both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding of facts while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. The State Commission had passed a detailed order giving reasons for the view taken by it while dismissing the appeal and the complaint of the petitioner and we do not wish to repeat the same. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which would call for our interference while exercising our revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, dismiss this meritless revision petition in limine.
..Sd/-...
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/