Insurance claims cannot be denied on technical grounds if the insurer has accepted premium payments, ensuring consumer protection under the law.

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against order dated 20.3.2015 in First Appeal No. 244/2013 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission").

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, the Petitioner has filed IA / 5181/2015, an application for Condonation of delay of 27 days. Since the delay is not very huge, in the interest of justice, application is allowed and delay condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent / Complainant obtained an Insurance Policy from the Petitioner / Opposite Party for his Bolero Car, bearing temporary registration No. PB - 11 - T - 5101 from 20.6.2011 to 19.7.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.6,17,800. In the night of 28.7.2011, car of the Complainant was stolen from outside Geeta Guest House, Jodhpur. Complainant lodged an FIR on 29.7.2011. Police could not trace the vehicle and submitted a negative final report on 30.9.2011. Complainant submitted insurance claim with the Opposite Party / Insurance Company. Petitioner / Opposite Party repudiated the claim, vide order dated 23.1.2013, on the ground that intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the Insurance Company with delay, which was in violation of the Policy condition and though temporary registration of the vehicle expired on 19.7.2011, the Complainant did not get the vehicle permanently registered. Thirdly, the Complainant left the vehicle unattended outside the guesthouse, in violation of the Policy condition.

4. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:
"(i) That the complete sum insured of stolen vehicle of applicant may please be awarded.
(ii) That the applicant hired a vehicle on 1.8.2011 and paid Rs.10,000 per month and till 31.2.2012 has paid total Rs.1,40,000 which should be allowed from non applicant.
(iii) That Rs.50,000 may please be allowed for mental agony.
(iv) That any other relief which Hon'ble Forum feel justify in favour of applicant, may please be awarded."

5. After hearing learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the record, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint, "as at the time of theft the vehicle is not registered, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party".

6. Against the order of the District Forum, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal with the following observation:
"As the Insurance Company itself insured the Complainant's vehicle with particular engine and chasis number and that vehicle has been stolen during the currency of the insurance policy then the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the genuine claim of the insured only on technical, petty and frivolous grounds of absence of permanent registration certificate from the competent authority and thereby escape from its liability to indemnify the insured for the loss of the vehicle during the currency of the insurance policy. The learned DCF too, in a very casual manner appreciated these facts and ignored the settled principles of law and thereby committed jurisdictional error and material irregularity in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the findings given and conclusion arrived at by the learned DCF, are erroneous and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set a side and the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
The present appeal of the appe