IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI NC/MA/515/2025 (RESTORATION)

WITH NC/IA/13010/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

IN NC/RP/1876/2024 (From the Order dated 04.04.2024 in FA No. 468/2023 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Shrawan Singh Shekhawat … Petitioner Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents NC/MA/516/2025 (RESTORATION)

WITH NC/IA/13019/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

IN NC/RP/1875/2024 (From the Order dated 04.04.2024 in FA No. 467/2023 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Shrawan Singh Shekhawat … Petitioner Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For Applicant / Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Bohra, Advocate Dated: 19.11.2025

ORDER

M.A. No. 515/2025 in R.P. No. 1876/2024 M.A. No. 516/2025 in R.P. No. 1875/2024

1. These two applications have been moved in these two revision petitions praying for recall of the order dated 24.09.2025, whereby the same were dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. We have perused the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bohra who has urged that due to the mistake on the part of the counsel, the case went unattended and therefore the order be recalled and the case be restored and heard on merits. The applications are supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel himself.

3. We find sufficient justification in the cause pleaded in the applications. We therefore allow the same and recall the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by us dismissing the revision petitions and restore them to their original numbers.

R.P. No. 1875/2024 & R.P. No. 1876/2024

4. These two revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 04.04.2024 in F.A. No. 467/2023 and F.A. No. 468/2023, whereby the orders of the District Commission dated 28.08.2023 passed in CC No. 456/2017 and 455/2017 have been reversed and the complaints have been dismissed.

5. However, both the complaints are in respect of two different vehicles and two separate policies even though the petitioner – complainant is the same. The incidents are also separate and the facts giving rise to the claim are slightly different. Nonetheless, the issue centres around as to whether the loss was caused on account of any malicious act or otherwise and as to whether keeping in view the nature of the policies, the claim could have been indemnified.

6. We therefore take up R.P. No. 1876/2024, where the petitioner complainant filed CC No. 455/2017 alleging that he was owner of Tanker no. RJ23 GA 5731 that was secured under a Carrier Legal Liability Policy, the tenure thereof was from 27.06.2014 to 26.06.2015. The policy also covered any loss during transit of diesel and petrol etc. that was to be transported through the said Tanker.

7. On 04.02.2015, when the Tanker was transporting 10000 litres of petrol and 14000 litres of diesel from Kota Depot to Jaipur in Rajasthan, then the driver of the said Tanker fell ill and he therefore parked the Tanker at a place known as Balapura where some other Tankers were also standing. When he woke up at 5.30am in the morning, the next day, he found that the Tanker was missing and consequently information was given to the police and an FIR was lodged on 05.02.2015 and an information was also sent to the Insurance Company.

8. The vehicle was found in an abandoned state on Chittorgarh Road by the police and was accordingly seized and taken into custody. The Insurance Company appointed Mr. B.K. Gupta as Surveyor and the loss was assessed. It was found that 2782 litres of diesel was short by the Surveyor and an approximate amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,36,622/- instead of the actual value of the said diesel which was Rs. 1,41,603.80p. The claim was lodged, but in the absence of any response a legal notice was given on 18.04.2017. On an information sou