1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.02.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 153 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 12.02.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 36 of 2007.

2.    We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) as also learned counsel for the complainant (the respondent herein) and the complainant in person. We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 12.02.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 04.02.2016 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay and the petition.  

3.       This petition has been filed with reported delay of 64 days.

The learned counsel for the insurance co. has no objection to the delay being condoned, and submits that the petition may be decided on merit.

In the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance co., as well as to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.

4.       The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the theft of the insured vehicle.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 12.02.2008 examined the facts of the case and directed that the complainant to seek remedy in the competent civil court (“Hence the complainant is directed to seek remedy in Civil Court. This order will not prejudice the case of either party.”). The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 04.02.2016 accepted the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the insurance co. to pay the insured amount of the stolen vehicle with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

5.       It is admitted by both sides that the vehicle was purchased on 29.11.2002 and was insured on 19.12.2002. However, according to the complainant the vehicle was stolen from Bodhgaya, P.S. Bodhgaya on 23.12.2002 i.e. after the insurance was taken, while according to the insurance co. the vehicle was stolen from Kaohhar Kainur, P.S. Kudra on 18.12.2002 i.e. before the insurance was taken. As such the crucial point of fact involved in this case is regarding the place and date of the theft.

6.       After the FIR was registered by the complainant the crime was investigated by the police. The police filed its report on completion of investigation before the competent court in which there was nothing as could be construed to imply that the incident was not true i.e. there was nothing that could raise any question on the place and date of the theft as reported by the complainant in his first information to the police. The final police report stated that the vehicle could not be traced and the miscreants could not be apprehended. The insurance co. was represented before the court and its issues and contentions regarding the place and date of the incident were considered by the court. The court vide its Order dated 03.12.2013 accepted the police report, which Order was not agitated any further by the insurance co.

7.       In this backdrop the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the complainant. Its Order of 04.02.2016 is reproduced below for reference:

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

The fact that the vehicle in question which was stolen and was insured by the respondent – Insurance Company is not in dispute. The claim amount not settled on the ground in pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by the complainant. The police is investigating the case and the respondent – Insurance Company is waiting for the submission of the Police report.

Learned counsel for both the parties has now accepted that the final police report has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In view of the above, held by both the parties that it will be just and proper that the Insurance Company should pay the insured amount within a period of two months along with interest @10% P.A. to be paid from the date of lodging the claim in the Insurance Company. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited, the interest will be paid @12% P.A. till payment.

8.       Learned counsel for the insurance co. argues that the vehicle in question was actually stolen from Kaohhar Kainur, P.S. Kudra on 18.12.2002. The complainant showed some other vehicle to its functionary and fraudulently obtained the policy on 19.12.2002. The insurance co. has taken departmental action against its errant functionary who was negligent in undertaking proper physical inspection of the vehicle and has awarded him penalty commensurate with his guilt and the same has also been upheld by the departmental appellate authority. The submission is that since the policy was fraudulently obtained subsequent to the theft, the claim is not admissible.  

The complainant in person submits that he had purchased the vehicle on 29.11.2002. The dealer from whom he made the purchase had assured him that it would obtain the insurance policy. However when the dealer did not obtain the policy for a number of days he took it upon himself and accordingly obtained the policy on 19.12.2002 and paid the premium therefor. On the said date the purchased vehicle was duly shown to the functionary of the insurance co. The vehicle subsequently got stolen from Bodhgaya, P.S. Bodhgaya on 23.12.2002. He lodged an FIR. The police investigated the matter and filed its report on completion of investigation before the competent court in which no questions were raised or doubts expressed on the incident being true. The vehicle could not be traced and the miscreants could not be apprehended. The submission is that his claim is genuine and there has been no malafide on his part.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is hard to believe that after the theft of a vehicle any person would attempt to obtain insurance the very next day in the wishful hope that the functionary who physically inspects the vehicle would display optimum negligence to overlook that some other vehicle was being produced for inspection. He further argues that the truth or untruth of the incident as reported in the first information to the police including the date and place has been investigated by the police and the police report on completion of the investigation has been accepted by the competent court wherein the issues and contentions of the insurance co. have also been dealt with. The submission is that there can hardly be any question now on the place and date of the incident when the same has been duly investigated by the police and more importantly the final police report has been duly accepted by the competent court after hearing the insurance co. too.

Learned counsel for the insurance co. fairly concedes that the Order dated 03.12.2013 of the competent court has not been challenged by it and as such it has attained finality.

9.       Considering the factual matrix as it emanates from the record, and specifically that the place and date of the incident as reported by the complainant have not been found to be untrue by the police and the police report on completion of investigation has been duly accepted by the competent court, we find it difficult to overrule the State Commission’s impugned Order which has been passed principally placing reliance on the police report and its due acceptance by the competent judicial court. Weighing the facts and evidence in their entirety, we do not find any material or reason as may cause us to hold that the State Commission has arrived at any perverse findings. As such we find no good ground to interfere with the State Commission’s impugned Order, which ex facie suffers from no jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

10.     The revision petition stands dismissed.

The amount if any deposited by the insurance co. with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 19.01.2017 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the complainant by way of ‘payee’s account only’ demand draft as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the insurance co. within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.        

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