ORDER (ORAL) 1. The challenge in this Revision Petition, by TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint is to the order dated 17.08.2008, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. FA-06/179. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 02.12.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Case no. 596/2005 and has consequently, dismissed the Appeal. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint, filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, alleging deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating his claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him on account of the theft of the Insured vehicle viz., a Maruti car, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,90,000/-, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the Car, as compensation for the loss of said vehicle. 2. Since the factum of theft of the vehicle is not in dispute, we deem unnecessary to burden the order by narrating the facts in extenso. It would suffice to note that the short controversy falling for consideration is whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that on the date of the incident i.e. 07.05.2003, the Insurance policy had already been cancelled on account of dishonouring of the cheque, issued by the Complainant towards the premium, at the time of obtaining the policy. 3. Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that since the cancellation of the policy was duly communicated by the Insurance Company to the Complainant, vide letter dated 08.04.2003, in the absence of a valid policy on the date of incident, both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in issuing the aforesaid directions. Learned Counsel has also made a valiant attempt to justify repudiation on the ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Complainant in informing the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle, and hence, the condition in the policy, stipulating such intimation within a reasonable time stood breached. It is thus, asserted that the repudiation of the claim was fully justified. 4. Having perused the documents on record, including the afore-noted letter dated 08.04.2003, ostensibly addressed to the complainant and the memo issued by bank dishonouring the cheque, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that that the Fora below had granted an opportunity to the Insurance Company to prove that due intimation about cancellation of the policy was actually given to the complainant, but no evidence in this behalf was adduced by the Insurance Company. It was stated that the relevant record had been destroyed in the floods. Besides, even assuming that the aforesaid letter was issued by the Insurance Company to the Complainant, it does not contain either the policy number or the cheque number and interestingly it was admittedly sent to the complainant after 20 days of the receipt of the memo from the bank, returning the cheque unpaid. 6. In light of the said evidence on record, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below that on the date of the theft, the factum of cancellation of the policy was not within the knowledge of the complainant. 7. In so far as the argument that there was delay in intimation of the theft to the Insurance Company is concerned, in our view the argument is stated to be rejected. Evidently, the claim preferred by the Complainant had not been rejected on the said ground and the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise such a plea in its pleadings, after filing of the complaint. 8. In view of the afore-going, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly with costs quantified at ₹10,000/-. 9. It appears from the order dated 01.05.2009 that a sum of ₹1,42,000/-, out of total decretal amount of ₹1,90,000/- had been deposited by the Insurance Company. However, it is not clear as to whether the said amount had been deposited in this Commission or the lower forum. Be that as it may be, it will be open to the Insurance Company to withdraw the said amount alongwith accrued interest, if any. 10. The amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be remitted to him directly by the Insurance Company within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till actual realisation. 11. The Revision Petition dismissed accordingly. |
