PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.02.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1479 of 2008, “Bachan Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, dismissing consumer complaint No. 334 of 2007,  was upheld. 

2.     The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant purchased a long-body truck, commonly known as Trolla, on 10.09.2003 for Rs.9,05,111/- from Sidh Motors Private Ltd. and got it financed by Sundram Finance Ltd., Moga, who advanced an amount of Rs.8.50 lacs as loan.  The said vehicle was registered with District Transport Officer, Ferozepur vide registration No. PB-05-J-9703 and insured with the respondent/opposite party, vide cover Note No.829533 for the period 10.09.2003 to 09.09.2004.  It has been stated in the complaint that Sahab Singh, brother of the complainant, is also the owner of the two such trucks, one 2001 model with registration No. PB-05-G-9803 and other 2003 model with registration No. PB-05-J-9803.  The three trucks were collectively insured by making payment of premium of Rs.58,114/- through cheque No. 011735 of 16.12.2004, drawn on Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank, Village Arif Ke, District Ferozepur for the period 17.12.2004 to 16.12.2005 and three separate policies were issued.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant and his brother Sahab Singh, with two trucks bearing Nos. PB-05-J-9703 and PB-05-J-9803 along with driver Balwinder Singh and cleaner Kala went to Amritsar and parked their trucks near Jagdambhey Transport Company at Amritsar-Tarn Taran Road, and slept there for the night intervening 3-4.06.2005.  At about 3.00 A.M., on 04.06.2005, the complainant, his brother and driver went to Shri Harmander Sahib to pay obeisance while Kala cleaner stayed back.  When they returned at about 6.30 A.M., they found that only one truck, bearing No. PB-05-J-9803 was parked at the site; whereas the other truck was missing.  The cleaner, who was sleeping could not give any satisfactory answer.  The matter was reported to the police post whereupon, the incharge police post, Varpal reached the spot and made enquiries, but FIR was not recorded immediately.  The complainant informed the Development Officer of respondent/opposite party, who suggested that FIR should be got registered.  The complainant again approached the police post, village Varpal, where he was told that the area was under the jurisdiction of police post Kot Mit Singh.  The FIR was ultimately registered as FIR No.137 of 20.06.2005 under Section 379 IPC at police station Sultanwind, Amritsar.  However, the truck remained untraced and a report to this effect was recorded by the police on 25.10.2006 and the case was closed as untraced.  The complainant submitted copy of the FIR and the claim form to the respondent, which appointed an investigator, who found after enquiry that the truck was never stolen; rather it was disposed of fraudulently with malafide intention.  The claim was repudiated by the insurance company, following which the consumer complaint in question was filed, claiming an amount of Rs.6.40 lacs from the opposite party, along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for the loss of earnings and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.  In their written statement filed before the District Forum, the insurance company denied that the complainant and his brother went to Amritsar and slept there for the night intervening 3-4.06.2005.  The insurance company stated that the entire story given by the complainant was a concocted story.  As per the report of the investigator, no theft had taken place and the FIR had also been manipulated.  The truck in question had already been disposed of fraudulently with malafide intention.  The insurance company had therefore, rightly rejected the claim.

3.     The District Forum vide their order dated 24.09.2008 dismissed the complaint.  An appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide impugned order.  It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 

4.     At the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel was asked to explain the delay in lodging FIR with the police and the delay in giving intimation to the insurance company.  He stated that they had given information to the local police on 06.06.2005, but the police registered the FIR only on 26.06.2005, as there was confusion regarding jurisdiction of particular Police Station/Post.  The complainant had also informed the Development Officer of the insurance Company-Pardeep Dhingra on the same day, but proper intimation along with claim form was given only on 04.07.2005. The learned counsel stated that the consumer fora below had taken an erroneous view in the matter, relying upon the report submitted by the investigator, appointed by the insurance company.

5.     We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It is clear from the material on record that there has been delay in lodging the FIR and in giving intimation to the insurance company about the alleged incident.  The FIR has been registered on 26.6.2005; whereas the incident is stated to have occurred on 04.06.2005.  On this score, we are in agreement with the observations of the State Commission made in the impugned order that if the FIR was not registered by the police, even then the complainant should have moved some application to set the law in motion regarding the theft.  Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted during admission hearing that formal intimation was given to the insurance company on 04.07.2005, i.e. after a lapse of one month of the incident.  The investigator appointed by the insurance company has commented adversely on the working of the Branch Manager, A.K. Wadhwa and Development Officer-Pardeep Dhingra, recommending action against them.  In view of the position brought out during the investigation, it is clear that the intimation was not promptly given to the insurance company.  The State Commission have rightly relied upon the order passed by this Commission in “New India Insurance Company Vs. Trilochan Jane”, F.A. No. 321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009, saying that the claim was not payable in the present case.  In the case quoted above, FIR was lodged two days after the theft and insurance company was given intimation after nine days and the said delay was found fatal to the payment of claim.  We therefore, agree with the State Commission that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the late registration of FIR and late intimation to the insurance company.

6.     Further, the reports submitted by Shri D.S. Chadha, investigator appointed by the insurance company is a detailed one and brings out that that the factum of theft had not been proved from the circumstances on record.  As per the own version of the complainant, the cleaner of the truck was present on the spot, but still, the truck was stolen, when he was very much present there.

7.     In view of the facts stated above, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum.  There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said orders, which may require interference at the revisional stage.  The said orders are therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.