HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1.       We heard learned counsel for the revisionists – insurance co. and the respondent - complainant, and perused the material on record.

2.       The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim regarding theft of a tractor.

          The theft occurred in 2013, we are in 2019.

3.       This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 27.01.2017 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 189 days.  

      The stated reasons for delay, as mentioned in paras 2 to 9 (a) of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:

2.    That the Petitioner after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 on 02.02.2017 entrusted the matter to Ms. Suman Bagga Advocate for filing the revision petition through e-mail and forwarded the certified copy of the impugned order along with order of the District Forum, complaint copy and claim file to her office on 10.02.2017.

3.    That the said counsel vide return mail requested the petitioner to send the written statement and evidence filed before the District Forum also.  The Petitioner had to get the said documents from the dealing advocate and the same were supplied to the counsel on 15.03.2016. Since all the documents were in Hindi language including the impugned order, the counsel gave the same to her clerk to get the documents translated from the translator available in Delhi High Court. The clerk of  the counsel informed her that there is only one translator in Delhi High Court from whom he gets the documents translated and he was also not available for few days. The clerk therefore, went to Tis Hazari Courts to get the documents translated and left the papers with the translator. The clerk informed the counsel that translation would take  at least two week’s time. The clerk also informed the counsel that he had retained the original certified copy of the impugned order with him and had handed over the photocopy of the same to the translator.

4.    That the clerk of the counsel went on leave in the last week of March, 2017 for preparing for his exams which were due in April-May, 2017 and before leaving, he informed the other clerk of the counsel to collect the translated documents from the translator in his absence and also handed over the original certified copy of the impugned order to him. The other clerk went to Tis Hazari Courts 2-3 times but could not establish contact with the translator. He ultimately brought the translated documents to the office on 27.04.2017 and gave the same to the counsel. The certified copy however, was earlier kept by him in some other file which could not be traced out immediately.

5.    That unfortunately, bereavement took place in the family of the counsel on 01.05.2017 and the counsel could not attend to her work for twelve days and the case in hand escaped the attention of the counsel. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had entrusted five matters to the counsel during that period and in all other matters, Revision Petitions / Appeals etc. have been filed by the counsel, the case in hand escaped the attention of the petitioner.

6.    That the counsel while clearing her backlog of cases and reviewing the files for pending work on 04.11.2017 came across the certified copy of the impugned order as also the file of the case in hand and the mistake was noticed. The Revision Petition had already been partly drafted by her and she completed the same immediately and forwarded to the office of the petitioner for approval on 5.11.2017. In this process a delay of 189 days has occurred in the filing the present revision petition. There was no lapse at all or any negligence on the part of the petitioner company as the instructions along with requisite documents had been timely forwarded to the office of the counsel. Affidavit of the counsel is also enclosed in support of this application.

7.    That the delay in filing the revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons.

8.    That there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition. The Petitioner is otherwise also having a prima facie good case on merits and has every hope to succeed in the matter.

9.    That this application is bona fide and is being made in the interest of justice.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to

(a)   Condone the delay of 189 days in filing the present revision petition and the petition may be heard on merits in accordance with law;    

                      (paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (a) of the application for condonation of delay)

4.       The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14 (1) (i) of the Regulations 2005). This revision petition has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 189 days.

5.       Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not visible. The stated reasons for delay, quoted, verbatim, in para 3 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay of 189 days.

6.       The revision petition, thus, fails on limitation.

7.       On merit, we note that the District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, through its Order dated 18.06.2014, allowed the complaint:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed, ordered that the respondent will pay Rs. 5,08,250/- to the complainant, cost of the tractor and will pay interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 17.10.2013 the date of filing of complaint till realization.

Responded will also pay Rs. 5000/- Rupees five thousand cost of the complainant and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only on account of mental agony.

                                                          (extract from the District Forum’s Order)

                 (as per the translated copy furnished by the revisionists)

8.       The insurance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, through its Order dated 27.01.2017, modified the award and ordered the insurance co. to pay 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis: 

The respondents have filed the reply before the District Forum and contended that the complainant has got the first information report of the theft registered after 12 days. And intimation of the theft of vehicle has been given to the respondent after a delay of 138 days on 31.05.2013, which is in violation of terms of the police. Therefore they have not committed any mistake in dismissing the claim. The complaint of the complainant be dismissed.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the recorded available on the file.  

The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant has got registered the first information report of the theft of tractor with delay of 12 days, and gave the intimation to the Insurance company after 138 days, which is in violation of the terms of the policy. Therefore the appeal be accepted and impugned order of the District Forum be set aside. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated the order of Forum as correct and has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent.

Copy of first information report is in the case file, from its perusal it appears that the complainant had given the report in the police station on 18.01.2013, but the police station official has not registered the report, and kept with them and assumed to search the tractor. On this the complainant has filed an complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tijara District Alwar and the court has sent to the complaint under Section 156(3) for investigation at the police station. In this compliant is not at fault. Generally on going to police station for getting the report registered, it is told by the police that we will also make the search, you also search at your own level, and let the victim to visit them in getting the report registered. Report of the complainant has been registered after coming the complaint from the court, therefore delay of 12 days is natural, if the police would have registered the report of the complainant at on going to the police station,  then the delay of 12 days would have no been occurred.

The entire claim cannot be rejected on the ground of giving the intimation to the Respondent Insurance Company with a delay of 138 days. In our opinion, in the matters of vehicle theft, giving the intimation with delay to the Insurance company cannot be accepted violation of terms and conditions of policy. But we thin to award only Non Standard Claim to the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme court in II (2 – 6) (CPJ 01 (SC) (National Insurance Company Versus Nitin Khandelwal & II (2010) CPJ 09 (SC) Amelendoo Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) (United India Insurance Company Vs. Gian Singh) have held that in the cases of vehicle theft, giving the information to the Insurance company with delay does not have any importance. Non Standard Claim should be awarded to the complainant.

As a result, the appeal of the appellant is accepted partly, the order dated 18.06.2014 passed in Complaint No. 1282/2013 of the District Forum Alwar, is modified in this manner that the appellant will make the payment of 75 percent of Non-Standard Claim of Rs. 5,08,250/-  i.e. Rs. 3,81,187/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty one this ground one hundred eighty seven in place of IDV 5,08,250/- of the tractor awarded by the District Forum to the complainant from 17.10.2013 the date of filing of complaint till realization at the rate of 09 percent interest per annum. Rest of the order of the District Forum will remain as it is.    

(State Commission’s Order)

                 (as per the translated copy furnished by the revisionists)

9.       We find the impugned Order dated 27.01.2017 of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the appraisal made by the State Commission, quoted, in toto, in para 8 above. The State Commission has concurred with the District Forum in its findings of deficiency in service. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, in the State Commission’s impugned Order.

10.     The case has been appraised by both the fora below. The two fora have arrived at concurrent findings of deficiency in service.

We find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision within the meaning and scope of section 21(b) of the Act 1986.

Briefly, however, we note that:

[a]     The chronology is as below:

[b]     The undisputed fundamental material facts are as below:

(i)      the premium had been paid by the complainant.

(ii)     the policy was valid.

(iii)    the complainant gave written complaint regarding the theft in the police station on 18.01.2013 i.e. the very next day of the theft.

(iv)    an FIR was lodged by the police after 12 days on the complainant approaching the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. for ordering an investigation.

(v)     it is nowhere on record that any report was made or any action taken by the police that the first information report was false.

11.     We find no reason on facts or law to disagree with the State Commission allowing 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis.

The State Commission’s award is upheld and affirmed.

12.     The revision petition, thus, fails on merit, also.      

13.     The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.

We see the chronology as also the undisputed fundamental material facts enunciated in para 10 above.

We observe that if a farmer’s tractor is stolen, and his insurance claim is not settled dutifully and promptly, he faces financial hardship, both with the financial institution (if any loan has been taken for the subject tractor) and in his agricultural operations.

14.     We find this to be a plain and simple case of a mega insurance co. on the one side, and an ordinary common consumer (farmer) on the other side, with the insurance co., unwarrantedly and unnecessarily, first, wrongly repudiating the claim (not considering it even for 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis), and then indulging in protracted litigation in, one, two, and finally, three, consumer protection fora, over a period of about six years.

We also find that, before the third forum, i.e. this Commission, its case fails on both limitation and merit.

The time and resources of this Commission have been unwarrantedly and unnecessarily wasted, which is not viewed favourably.

15.     Considering the entirety of the facts and specificities of the case, the revision petition is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the revisionists – insurance co. through imposition of just and appropriate cost of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to be paid by ‘payee’s a/c only’ demand draft to the complainant within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

16.     The State Commission’s award as contained in its Order dated 27.01.2017 shall be complied with within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

17.     The District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law if paras 15 and 16 above are not complied with within the stipulated period of four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

18.     Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to both sides by the Registry within seven days of its pronouncement.