This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is directed against the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) -2- in First Appeal No.504 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the order dated 29.03.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short “the District Forum”) in Compliant No.58 of 2012. In so far as, the District Forum is concerned, it had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR for the theft of the insured tractor with the trolley, and a delay of almost two weeks in intimating the Insurance Company about the incident, on the part of the Complainant. However, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that although the tractor had been got insured for agriculture purpose, but the same was being used for transportation of sand and soil, resulting in fundamental breach of the policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim preferred by the Complainant. The insured tractor with the trolley was purchased by the Complainant on 18.02.2011. Unfortunately, it got stolen on 24.02.2011, while it was lying parked at the Complainant’s residence. On receiving the intimation about the theft of the vehicle, the Insurance Company appointed an Investigator. Relying on certain statements, allegedly recorded by him, including the statement of the Complainant, vide his -3- report dated 11.03.2011, the Investigator concluded that though the date and place of theft seemed to be genuine; the tractor had not even been registered till the date it was stolen as the theft took place just within a week from the date of its purchase, but the same was being used for supply of sand/soil on hire and reward to nearby areas and that the Complainant/Insured had consented to accept 50% less of the IDV. It was also observed that the police investigation was still on and untraced report was also awaited. Referring to the said report, vide its letter dated 09.06.2011, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the following short ground: “The above loss was assessed by an independent loss assessor, M/s Royal Investigator. During investigating the loss, it has been found that the vehicle was being used for the purpose of Hire or Reward”. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to make the payment of a sum of ₹4,95,000/- towards compensation along with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from date of theft/stolen till final payment. As noted above, both the Forums have dismissed the Complaint, though on different grounds. Hence this Petition. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties & perused the documents on record. -4- Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the statements, referred to by the Investigator in his report, are contradictory, these were not even exhibited and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is also urged that the tractor having been stolen within less than seven days of its purchase, when parked, the observation of the Investigator that it was being regularly used for ferring sand and soil was highly improbable, more so when it had not even been registered and could not be put to use. It is, thus, asserted that the claim has been repudiated by the Insurance Company in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, so much so even the subject matter mentioned on the letter of repudiation was in respect of a claim for damage to a car. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that since the afore-stated statements had been specifically referred to in the Investigator’s report, which was exhibited the authenticity of the said documents stood automatically proved. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant. The tractor having been purchased only four days before its theft, it would bely any reasonably instructed person’s conviction that it was being “regularly” used for transportation of sand/soil. At the same -5- time, it can also not be ignored that there was delay on the part of the Complainant in lodging the FIR as well as informing the Insurance Company about the theft within a reasonable time. Thus, balancing the equities, in my view, interests of justice would be sub-served if the Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim of the Petitioner on non-standard basis (75% of the IDV). I direct accordingly. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy thereof. If the said amount is not paid within the time granted, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the Complaint till realization. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. | 
