NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3942/2009

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESH KUMAR BHAWNANI

21 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3942 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 14/07/2009 in Appeal No. 172/2007 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWALS/o. Shri Shri Kumar Agarwal R/o. Near Bus Stand Thana & District Surguja C.G ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co.Com. Ltd.Branch Mangendragarh Road. Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur Distt. SurgujaC.G ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Counsel for petitioner states that in fact there has been no delay in preferring revision petition as it is filed within time. Be that as it may, on submission made by counsel for petitioner delay of three days is condoned. Brief facts of the case are that Tata Spacio, purchased by petitioner on 24.10.2003 was insured by respondent-company as a private vehicle on the basis of Engine and Chassis number, as vehicle by that time was not registered in the office of RTO. However, vehicle was registered in the book of RTO subsequently as Taxi. Since vehicle was requisitioned by Government, during election, after delivering election materials it met with an accident and suffered damages. Claim preferred by petitioner was, however, repudiated by respondent –insurance company holding breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as while vehicle was insured as private car, it was being used, on getting registered as Taxi in the book of RTO. Aggrieved petitioner knocked door of consumer fora filing a complaint and District Forum having overruled contentions raised on part of respondent insurance-company while accepting claim directed insurance-company to pay Rs.42,276/- alongwith 9% interest. However, aforesaid finding of District Forum was reversed by State Commission taking notice of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, which was not a simple case of violation of terms regarding limitation as to use, hence this revision by petitioner. Facts of the case tell a tale. Though vehicle was insured as private vehicle with respondent insurance-company when it was not registered with RTO, and even after it was registered as Taxi, no changes were made in the book of insurance-company for conversion of insurance for a Taxi by paying additional premium. Rightly, State Commission held that it was not simple violation of terms regarding limitation as to use but right from very beginning registered owner was violating terms and conditions of policy. Insurance-company too had suffered financial losses for failure of petitioner to pay additional premium for conversion of private vehicle as a Taxi. Views taken by State Commission in no way can be said to be erroneous, which is affirmed. Revision petition without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER