- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.1.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 160/2010, whereby the appellants herein, have been directed to pay Rs. 4,32,000 to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. xv.e.f. 22.3.2010 till date of payment, on account of theft of the insured vehicle. It has further been directed to the appellants to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that a vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. C.G.04/H.A.2846, was of the registered ownership of the complainant, Sanju Dongre, which was insured by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited/Insurance Company under a Private Car Package Policy for sum assured Rs. 5,76,000 for a period between 21.10.2008 and 20.10.2009. The case of the complainant before District Forum was that the said vehicle was stolenby someone on 25.3.2009, when it was parked in front of house of the complainant under locked condition. The incident was immediately reported to the Police and also to the Insurance Company. Later on, a claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by it on the ground that complainant was guilty of violation of Term No. 4 of the insurance policy and, so, no claim is payable. Then, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. In reply of which also, the Insurance Company averred that the complainant has wrongly claimed "no claim bonus" at the time of seeking insurance for the vehicle and a discount of 20% in the amount of premium, was provided to him on account of the fact that he had not earlier claimed any bonus for the vehicle from the earlier Insurance Company. Later on, it revealed to the Insurance Company that the statement made by the complainant at the time of making proposal for insurance of the vehicle, was not true and, thus, complainant was guilty of betraying the Insurance Company by making a false claim at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle, so the Insurance Company, was not liable to pay any amount under the insurance policy, as policy has become void on account of suppression of material fact and making a false claim at the time of making proposal for the insurance of the vehicle.
(3.) LEARNED District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions of both parties allowed the complaint of the complainant and awarded compensation on 'non -standard basis' equivalent to 75% of the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) of the vehicle. The Insurance Company felt aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum and came up before us by way of this appeal.;