1.       The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent as detailed above, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 05.12.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in FA No. 10/2018 in which order dated 23.01.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 37/2016 was challenged, interalia praying for setting aside the order dated 23.01.2018 of the State Commission.

2.       Petitioner has challenged the said order of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds:

(a) Order of the State Commission is based on presumption and assumptions as the State Commission as well as the Consumer Commission clearly erred by alleging deficiency on the part of petitioner.

(b) It has been laid down by the Higher Courts that where there is reasonable delay in intimation, the insurer cannot reject the claim however where the delay is inordinate the benefits under the policy cannot be passed on to the insured.

(c) State Commission failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner in respect of non-intimation which removes the aspect of deficiency in services as no such service was ever availed by the respondent.   

(d) The amount awarded is excessive and unreasonable. There was no fault on the part of petitioner and they ought not to have been saddled with any liability.

3.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On account of non-appearance of the respondent despite substituted service, respondent has already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.02.2024. The main contention of the petitioner insurance company is that they never received any intimation/claim from the respondent, hence the question of deficiency of service does not arise. On the other hand before the fora below, the respondent herein has contended that the theft took place on 26.04.2014, oral intimation was given to the police immediately followed by FIR 03.05.2014 and intimation cum claim was filed on 30.11.2015 along with requisite documents like FIR, RC etc. The petitioner Insurance Company has disputed the receipt of the said intimation/claim letter dated 30.11.2015, however both the District Forum and the State Commission relying on document no. 5/4 have come to a finding that said letter/claim dated 30.11.2015 was sent by the respondent to the petitioner Insurance Company.

4.       During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Insurance Company has no objection in paying the claim amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- even now provided all the requisite documents like original Subrogation Letter, Form 29 and 30, Form 26 and 28, original NOC from the Financer if any along with Form 35 and the KYC document such as Aadhar, Pan and Cancelled Cheque are submitted and no interest/litigation cost is imposed on them and they are not held liable for deficiency of service.

5.       In view of the foregoing statement of the learned counsel for petitioner, in partial modification of the orders of the District Forum/State Commission following orders are passed:

1. Petitioner, Insurance Company shall, within one week from the date of this order, sent an intimation by registered AD post to the Respondent herein at his notified address, along with copy of this order, clearly listing the documents they require from him, giving him at least four weeks’ time to submit the requisite documents. As soon as all the required documents are received, the petitioner Insurance Company shall, within four weeks of receipt of these documents pay the entire claim of Rs.2,70,000/- as agreed to by the learned counsel during the hearing today.
2. In addition, we order that petitioner insurance company shall pay interest @6% per annum to be payable w.e.f the date decided by the State Commission till the date of payment.
3. Further orders of the District Forum/State Commission with regard to litigation cost is set aside, and considering that the petitioner Insurance Company has volunteered to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-, there will be no findings of deficiency in service on record against the petitioner Insurance Company.

6.       RP is disposed off accordingly and orders of District Forum/State Commission stand modified to this extent.

7.       After the claim is paid by the Insurance Company, they may move the State Commission for the release of the Statutory deposit.   

8.       Pending IAs if any, also stand disposed off.