NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS - Opp.Party(s)
R.K.BHAWNANI
02 Feb 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 530 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 29/12/2005 in Appeal No. 327/2005 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. RAKESH BAIDS/O. SHIR , JAIRAMJI BAID RAKESH INDUSTRICE SADAR BAZAR , DISTRICT RAIPUR -C.G,
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORSDIVISIONALOFFICE NO, XVII-12, COMMUNITY CENTER , 1ST, & 2ND FLOOR, NEW DELHI
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
Petitioner having suffered dismissal order due to inadvertence, is in revision. Succinctly put, Nokia Cellular Mobile phone purchased by petitioner was insured by respondent insurance company with a special contingency policy covering risk for a period of one year. After the said mobile phone was stolen by some unidentified miscreants, claim that was lodged by petitioner was repudiated holding that the event of theft was not covered under the policy and hence insurance company was not liable to indemnify the loss. In a complaint that was filed with District Forum, complaint was accepted granting relief to the petitioner. State Commission, however, in appeal, reversed the finding taking recourse to the rider clause in the policy in the matter of theft of insured mobile. When the matter came in revision on behest of the complainant/petitioner, instant revision petition bearing No. 530/2006 was inadvertently dismissed by National Commission along-with other revision petitions filed by insurance company with identical issue, in view of decision of National Commission in RP 186/2007 & 187/2007. However, shortly after the matter was brought to the notice of Commission filing a review application, revision petition was restored to its number. Since identical issue about failure of the insurance company to apprise the customer of all its terms and conditions including the Exclusion Clause of the policy, in view of Regulation No. 3 of the Insurance Regulation and Development Authority Regulation, 2002 were involved in a number of revision petitions including RP No. 530/2006, that was clubbed together for hearing and while all revision petitions filed by insurance company challenging the order of State Commission were dismissed by this Commission, inadvertently, revision petition No. 530/2006 which was filed by customer and not the insurance company, was also dismissed. Hence, regard being had to the ratio of decision rendered by National Commission in RP 186/2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.P. Jain and RP 187/2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Manjeet Kumar & Ors., even though petitioner had a good cause for success in the revision. Revision petition was inadvertently dismissed along-with other revision petitions. Applying ratio of decision in RP 186/2007 & 187/2007, instant revision petition filed by Rakesh Baid against insurance company is accordingly allowed, setting aside the finding recorded by State Commission, with no order as to cost.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
