1. CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''State Commission '') in appeal No. 87/2011 thereby confirming the order of the District Forum partly allowing the complaint and directing the Insurance Company to settle the claim on non-standard basis in respect of the theft of insured vehicle at a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 along with interest @ 6% with compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental harassment and cost of Rs. 1,000.
2. WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company and have considered her submissions. One ground on which the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim was that the Insurance Policy was obtained by the complainant by suppressing the material fact about he having the received the insurance claim from another Insurance Company when the vehicle was insured with different Insurance Company and thus, he received no-claim bonus of 20% from the petitioner Insurance Company while taking the insurance cover. The other reason was that the complainant was negligent by leaving the key in the ignition hole of the vehicle, which is a violation of the terms of the policy, though, the fact of the loss of the vehicle due to theft is not disputed. Immediate FIR was filed and the vehicle never recovered either by the Police or by the Insurance Company. So far as the first contention is concerned, we can simply observe that it was not such a material concealment of material fact which would altogether disentitle insured of his bona fide claim once it is established beyond doubt that the insured vehicle was subject matter of theft on a particular date. So far as the question whether the complainant himself was negligent by leaving the key in the car, no sufficient proof has been adduced by the opposite party Insurance Company. In our view, therefore, the petitioner Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim on those grounds. At best it could settle and has been directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis. The finding and order recorded by the Fora below are justified on the face of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and material brought on record and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.
