IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim cannot be allowed on a cock and bull story.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Complainant has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging order dated 1.5.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1267 of 2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (for short, ‘District Forum’) to the effect that his Mahendra Scorpio Car was insured with Respondent/O.P. from 6.6.08 to 5.6.09. One Mr. Amba Lal Raika, a person known to him requested him to carry some persons known to him from Bhilwara to Banswara. He sent his driver Kailash Mali with his aforesaid vehicle to drop the aforesaid persons to Banswara. The unknown persons were carried on 15.09.2008 by his driver in the aforesaid vehicle to Banswara and those persons gave some intoxicated food material to his driver and he became unconscious. Thereafter, those persons stole the vehicle. In this connection, FIR No.515/08 u/s 328 and 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bhilwara. After investigation, police submitted a negative final report. After completing the required formalities, petitioner submitted his claim with the respondent which was rejected by it. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. Respondent in its written statement took the plea that claim of the petitioner was legally rejected as at the time of the incident, petitioner was using its vehicle for commercial purposes for hire and reward i.e. on rent, whereas the vehicle was registered for private use and also insured for private use. Thus, petitioner has violated the terms of the insurance policy. Moreover, no information about the alleged incident was given to the police station, Banswara by the driver of the petitioner or the Hotel persons. The FIR was registered only on 15.9.2008 in Bhilwara. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent.

4. District Forum, vide order dated 17.5.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed vide impugned order. Accordingly, the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed.

6. Hence, the present revision petition.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per impugned order there was delay on the part of the petitioner in informing about the incidence. However, this issue was never raised before the District Forum nor the delay was the ground for repudiation of the petitioner’s claim. Other contention is that, the petitioner could have lodged the FIR at any place either at Banswara or Bhilwara under the Code of Criminal Procedure and this is no ground for rejection of the claim. Further, even assuming for arguments sake that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, the same does not entitle respondent to fully escape its liability. On this point, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal1.

9. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that when vehicle was stolen at Banswara then why no FIR was lodged immediately at the place of incident, that is, at Banswara, either by the driver or the Hotel Authorities.

10. The State Commission, while allowing the appeal observed;

“7. We are in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the complainant lodged an FIR at Banswara itself where the offence had been committed nor any information was given about the commission of the offence at Banswara either by the driver Kailash Mali or by the authorities of the Hotel Ashoka, where the driver of the vehicle was staying and where the