HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1.       We heard learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance co. and the respondent no. 1 – complainant, and perused the material on record.

The respondent no. 2 – financial institution is being proceeded against ex parte. 

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

          The theft occurred in 2010, we are in 2019.

3.       The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 26.11.2015, allowed the complaint and ordered the insurance co. to pay 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis:

4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

5.         Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced  by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he got insured his vehicle bearing Regd. No. HR-55J-3663 vide policy No. 102015 which was valid w.e.f. 11.07.2010 to 10.07.2011 with IDV of Rs. 6 Lacs. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown persons and in this regard FIR No. 705 dated 07.12.2010 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Gurgaon City has been registered but the vehicle could not be traced and police filed Untrace Report of the vehicle which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court on 13.11.2011. The complainant submitted the claim with the opposite party no. 1 but the opposite party no. 1 failed to reimburse the claim and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

6.         However, the contention of the insurance company is that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as he has reported the matter to the police after three days of the occurrence and to the insurance company after 23 days of the loss of the vehicle and thus, the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1.

7.         Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that there is no dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party no. 1 which was financed by OP-2 and during the subsistence of the insurance policy it was stolen on 04.12.2010 regarding which FIR No. 705 dated 07.12.2010 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Gurgaon City has been registered i.e. after three days of the occurrence and the intimation to the insurance company was given after 23 days of the occurrence. However, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant was required to report the matter to the police as well as insurance company immediately after the occurrence and thus, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aamelendu Sahoo Vs. OIC Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010 decided on 25.03.2010 has held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non-standard basis and has laid down the guide lines for granting compensation on non-standard basis. In view of the guidelines laid down in Amalendu Sahoo’s case (supra), we deem it proper to grant compensation on the basis of non-standard basis to the extent of 75% of the insured amount.                

8.         Therefore, in view of our above discussion we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no. 1 – insurance company to make the payment of 75% of the sum insured to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.03.2012 till realization in terms of the insurance policy. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. However, he is entitled to Rs. 3100/- as cost of litigation. The opposite party No. 1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

                                                (paras 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the District Forum’s Order)

4.       The insurance co. had appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 29.03.2016 had dismissed the appeal: 

9.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

10.    Indisputably, the IDV of the vehicle was insured Rs. 6.00 lacs and it was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.

11.    For the reasons recorded supra, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                (paras 9,10 and 11 of the State Commission’s Order)

5.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 29.03.2016 of the State Commission.

6.          We find the Orders dated 26.11.2015 of the District Forum and dated 29.03.2016 of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. We note in particular the appraisals made by the two fora, quoted in paras 3 and 4 above. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

7.       The case has been appraised by both the fora below. The two fora have arrived at concurrent findings.

Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b) of the Act 1986, 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.

8.       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)    an FIR was lodged by the police on 07.12.2010 i.e. on the third day of the theft of the vehicle.

(iv)    a ‘Final Report’ was filed by the police in the Court of the CJM, and it was accepted by the Court.

(v)     no report was made or any action taken by the police that the first information report was false.

9.       We find no reason on facts or law to disagree with the State Commission concurring with the findings of the District Forum in allowing 75% of the insured declared value on non-standard basis.

The District Forum’s Order dated 26.11.2015, as upheld and affirmed by the State Commission, is sustained.

10.     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 8 above. We further see that the complainant had availed loan from a financial institution for the subject vehicle. We observe that if a consumer’s vehicle (exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment) is stolen, and his insurance claim is not settled dutifully and promptly, he faces financial hardship, both with the financial institution and in earning his livelihood.

11.     We find this to be a plain and simple case of a mega insurance co. on the one side, and an ordinary common consumer on the other side, with the insurance co., unwarrantedly and unnecessarily, first, wrongly repudiating the claim (by not considering it 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 nine years.

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

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

12.     Considering the entirety of the facts and specificities of the case, the revision petition is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the revisionist – 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.

13.     The District Forum’s award as contained in its Order dated 26.11.2015 shall be complied with within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

14.     The District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law if paras 12 and 13 above are not complied with within the stipulated period of four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

15.     Let a copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum and to all parties (including the financial institution which has been proceeded against ex parte) within seven days of its pronouncement.