National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dharam Kumar Agarwal vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co . ... on 5 October, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 709 OF 2012 (From the Order dated 23.11.2011 in Appeal No. 398/2011 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur) Dharam Kumar Agarwal Petitioner S/o Late Shri Ambika Prasad Lodhipara Chowk, Kampa Tehsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co . Ltd. G.E. Plaza, Airport Road Yerawada, Pune (Maharashtra) 2. Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd. Respondents 2A, Prakasham Road, T. Nagar Chennai-600 017. 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co . Ltd. Branch Office Shivmohan Bhawan Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandri Raipur (Chhattisgarh) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate Pronounced on : 5th OCTOBER, 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, (State Commission in short).
2. The petitioner was the original complainant and the respondents were the OPs before the District Forum. Briefly stated, the petitioner who is the owner of a printing press insured the same with the OP Insurance Co. under a Shopkeepers Package Insurance Policy for the period between 30.4.2007 to 29.4.2008. In an incident of fire, which took place on 10.5.2007, the machinery of the printing press was damaged and the complainant allegedly suffered a loss of about Rs.4 lakhs. According to the complainant/petitioner, he immediately informed the Insurance Co. regarding the incident and later on information was also given to the OP Insurance Co. in writing. Then a claim was preferred with the OP Insurance Co. which came to be repudiated by it on the ground that the intimation regarding the incident was given five months late and so the Insurance Co. was having no occasion to get the loss assessed by some licenced valuer or loss assessor. According to the OP Insurance e Co., it was material violation of the terms of the insurance policy and hence the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant/petitioner. Agreeing with the defence taken by the OP Insurance Co., the District Forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 21.6.2011. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order.
3. We have heard Mr. R.K.Bhawnani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds given in the revision petition. It is submitted that the complainant gave information about the accident to the Insurance Co. on the day of the incident itself on mobile phone. However, this has been specifically denied by the OPs through an affidavit. Submission of the information in writing after five months from the date of incident is not under dispute. In the circumstances, we find that the State Commission has rightly non-suited the claim of the petitioner in line with the view taken by this Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Trilochan Jane [First Appeal No.321 of 2005, decided on 9.12.2009]. We agree with the view taken by the Fora below and do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we dismiss this meritless revision petition in limine with no order as to costs.
....Sd/-...
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/