2017 (10) TMI 1663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t 9:00 p.m. Consequently, an FIR was lodged, on 24.03.2010, in Police Station Tapkura, District Alwar, Rajasthan, Under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Appellant visited the office of the first Respondent but the office was found to be closed. Then the Appellant went to the place of theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police official. On 29.03.2010, the Appellant along with the truck driver, went with the police officials for their assistance to search the vehicle. The Appellant reached his village on 30.03.2010. On 31.10.2010, the Appellant lodged the insurance claim with the Respondent-company at Hissar and provided the necessary documents which were demanded by the Respondent-company. 3. Pursuant to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commission') at Panchkula. The State Commission by an order dated 23.10.2013 dismissed the said appeal. This order was challenged by the Appellant by way of Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'National Commission'). This Revision Petition has been dismissed by the National Commission by an order dated 12.02.2014. The Appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant, immediately after getting the information about the theft of the vehicle, went to the place of theft and met the police officials along with the truck driver. Consequently, he got busy with the police while vis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....03.2010 and the claim petition was filed on 31.03.2010. Dinesh, the truck-driver, had filed an affidavit before the District Forum stating that the owner of the truck had reached the place of occurrence of theft and met him and also the concerned police official. The Police had asked him and the owner to stay with them in order to help them for tracing out the truck. The police had also asked them to collect necessary documents in relation to the said truck. They were, consequently, busy with the Rajasthan Police in searching the vehicle. They visited many places in Rajasthan. The police had compelled the Appellant to accompany them while searching the truck. It is only on 29.03.2010, the Appellant went back and reached his village on 30.03....