1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.12.2008 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1091 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 28.09.2006 of the District Commission in complaint no. 152 of 2006.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the two sides and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 28.09.2006 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.12.2008 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       In the interest of justice, in order to provide fair opportunity to the insurance company (the revisionist herein), and to dispose of the revision after going into the merits (rather than to dismiss it on limitation), the delay of 34 days in filing the petition is condoned.

4.       The dispute relates to repudiation of the insurance claim on the loss of the insured articles in a robbery (the claim was treated as “no claim”).

5.       It is admitted that the premium had been paid, the policy was valid, the first information report of the robbery was lodged with the police (and the police on investigating had not found it to be a case of false information).

6.       The District Commission allowed the complaint, on contest, and, with reasons recorded, ordered the opposite party insurance company (the revisionist herein) to pay Rs. 6.70 lakh to the complainant (the respondent herein) along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.  

7.       The insurance company appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission made its appraisal of the facts and evidence, and, giving reasons therefor, assessed the loss at Rs. 6.52 lakh (rather than at Rs. 6.70 lakh as assessed by the District Commission) and modified the award accordingly (it left the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- unaltered).

8.       Concurrent findings on all material aspects of the matter have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that we find the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. We also do not find any reason to make a fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

9.       In so far as the award is concerned, we notice that the incident of robbery i.e. the loss of the insured articles took place in 2003, the insurance company repudiated the claim in 2004, the consumer complaint was filed in 2006, the District Commission passed its Order in 2006, the State Commission passed its Order in 2008, the revision before this Commission was filed in 2009, we are now in 2022. It can also not be lost sight of that payment of interest on the awarded amount has not been factored in in the award. It bears emphasis that the insurance company was dutybound to make good the loss promptly and without unreasonable delay and also that the claim has been found to be genuine by both the fora below.

10.     Learned counsel for the complainant draws attention to this Commission’s Order dated 20.10.2009 whereby the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount with the District Commission. He also draws attention to this Commission’s Order dated 19.03.2010 wherein the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company is recorded that the said amount had been deposited on 25.11.2009 vide cheque no. 295923.

Learned counsel requests that the 50% of the awarded amount deposited by the insurance company with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 20.10.2009 along with interest if any accrued thereon while in deposit with the District Commission may be forthwith released to the legal heir of the deceased complainant and the balance 50% of the awarded amount (i.e. Rs. 6.52 lakh ÷ 2 =  Rs.3.26 lakh plus Rs. 25,000 ÷ 2 =  Rs. 12,500/- plus Rs. 5,000/- ÷ 2 =  2500/- : total Rs.3.41 lakh) may be forthwith paid by the insurance company to the legal heir of the deceased complainant. 

He submits that if the afore payments are dutifully made, now at least, the legal heir of the complainant will not press for factoring in payment of interest on the awarded amount.  

11.     The legal heir of the complainant present in person submits that though his mother (since deceased) had been put to incessant trouble and prejudice from 2003 onwards by not settling her honest claim, the genuineness of which has also been established by the two fora below, he will not press for factoring in payment of interest on the awarded amount but at least the awarded amount should now be paid without further delay.

12.     Learned counsel for the insurance company initially tried, though unsuccessfully, to point out some shortcomings in the appreciation of the facts and evidence by two fora below. But he later submits that considering the efflux of time, seeing that the complainant has expired and her legal heir has since been substituted, the amount involved being comparatively less, the legal heir of the complainant is not agitating for factoring in payment of interest on the awarded amount, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the insurance company may promptly satisfy the award provided the payment of interest may not be factored in in the award and also if this case may not be treated as a precedent.

13.     Sequel to the above examination, and considering the afore submissions, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The amount deposited by the insurance company with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 20.10.2009 along with interest if any accrued thereon while in deposit with the District Commission shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the legal heir of the deceased complainant (substituted by this Commission in her place) i.e. to Mr. Akshay Sharma son of Late Dr. Madhu Barua, as per the due procedure and after the due verification.

(ii) The balance 50% of the awarded amount (i.e. Rs. 6.52 lakh ÷ 2 =  Rs.3.26 lakh plus Rs. 25,000 ÷ 2 =  Rs. 12,500/- plus Rs. 5,000/- ÷ 2 =  2500/- : total Rs.3.41 lakh) shall be paid by the insurance company to the legal heir of the deceased complainant as per the due procedure and after the due verification within six weeks from today without fail.

(iii) This case shall not be treated as a precedent.

14.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.