V.B. Gupta, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2007, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (FA No.177 of 2006) filed by the respondent/O.Ps against order dated 13.4.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in complaint no.144 of 2005, thereby accepting the complaint.

2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant purchased a Nokia cell phone for Rs.3,700/- on 3.7.2004, which was duly insured by the respondents. It has been alleged by the petitioner that said handset was stolen from his shirt pocket on 31.3.2005. Accordingly, he lodged police report of the incident on 1.4.2005. Petitioner put up a claim with the respondents on 2.4.2005, alongwith relevant documents. Respondents, repudiated the claim, vide their letter dated 30.4.2005.

3. The complaint was opposed by the respondents. In its written statement, respondents took the plea that special contingency policy was issued covering the risk, under the terms specified therein. Risk of theft as alleged by the petitioner was not covered under the policy. Hence, petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

4. District Forum, vid