The dispute arose in 2008, we are in 2018. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the revisionists – opposite parties – insurance co. against the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission wherein the two fora below found deficiency in service on the part of the insurance co. The District Forum vide its Order dated 27.11.2013 allowed the complaint, and awarded the insured amount; interest thereon; and compensation to the complainant. The State Commission vide its Order dated 26.03.2015 concurred with the findings of the District Forum; however, it modified the award of the District Forum to the extent of altering the date from which the interest shall be paid on the insured amount and disallowing the compensation awarded by the District Forum. 2. Brief details, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the respondent–complainant had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- for her vehicle (Tata Sumo) from the revisionists – opposite party – insurance co., which was in force till 08.08.2008. Payment of Rs.6,435/- towards premium is not disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 29.06.2008. Lodging of F.I.R by the complainant is not disputed. Intimation about the theft through registered post to the insurance co. is not disputed. 3. The contention of insurance co. was that the complainant intimated about the theft of vehicle after expiry of 14 days and as such she had violated the conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The contention of the complainant was that there was no delay in informing the insurance co. about the theft as she intimated the insurance co. on 01.07.2008 over phone but she was advised to report the theft in writing with a copy of the FIR. The complainant got the copy of the FIR on 10.07.2008, and immediately thereafter, on 11.07.2008, she intimated the insurance co. by registered post, as such there was no intentional delay. 5. The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the case, and through a reasoned Order dated 27.11.2013 allowed the complaint, inter alia observing that: 5. On 11-07-2008 the O.P.no. 2 was informed through registered post which was admittedly received on 14-07-2008. The O.P.’s only contention is that they were informed of the theft after expiry of 14 days and thereby the condition no. 1 was violated. If this be the only criterion to repudiate the claim of the complainant, we must say that the reason is too fragile to merit acceptance. A man of common prudence shall primarily lay emphasis on extensive search of the stolen vehicle. Complainant left no stone unturned in search of the vehicle. Local P.S. was informed, P.S. case was started. This prompt action on the part of the complainant must not go unrewarded. She was definitely in perplexed state of mind when she found it stolen. Naturally this delay of 14 days to inform O.P. no. 2 cannot be regarded fatal to extinguish her hope for reimbursement of the insured sum. 6. …. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed as we trace gross deficiency in service…. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 103 of 2013 (HDF 103 of 2013) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. The O.Ps. be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. since 11-07-2008 against policy no. MPC-00058612-000-00 within 30 days from the date of this order. The o.ps. be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and prolonged harassment to the complainant. The complainant is further entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-from the O.Ps. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. 6. The insurance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, again appraised the case, and vide a reasoned Order dated 26.03.2015 concurred with the findings of the deficiency in service but modified the award, inter alia observing that: ..…. Against this backdrop, a few days delay on the part of the Insured in intimating such matter, though not desirable, to the Insurance Company hardly makes any difference. It is our considered opinion that in case of material breach of policy terms and conditions, an Insurer has definite ground to repudiate a claim, otherwise not. In the case of a theft related case, if there is nothing to suspect the bona fide of a claim, Insurance Company should not act contrary to the spirit of the policy that envisages indemnification of loss arising out of such peril. We are of view that in case of a theft claim what is relevant and material for adjudicating the claim is whether the theft had indeed taken place or not and whether the occurrence took place within the subsistence of the insurance policy or not. The Appellants have not placed on record any cogent proof to the effect that the incident of theft, as alleged by the Respondent, was a concocted/fabricated fact. Rather, vide his letter dated 22-07-2008 to the RTA, Tamluk, Mr. Debajit Chakraborty, Investigator deployed by the Appellants reported that, ‘…..After different proceedings carried out by me till date the stolen TATA Sumo Se (sic) vehicle is neither traced out by the police authority nor any clue is reported to have been marked……..’. So, it belies the contention of the Appellants that there was no proper evidence to support the allegation of the Respondent. ….. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 259, the Hon’ble Court observed that, ‘In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.’ From the factual matrix of the case and also keeping in mind the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, it becomes abundantly clear that by repudiating the claim of the Respondent, the Appellants virtually acted against the spirit of the policy. By no means, a few days’ delayed intimation to the Insurance Company about a peril in theft related case, as held by the highest Court of the land, can be considered as material and relevant breach of policy condition. That being so, we find no rationality in the decision of the Appellants to thump down the claim of the Respondent. …. However, we find that the Ld. District Forum has awarded both compensation as well as interest in favour of the Respondent, which is not tenable under the law. Therefore, the same is modified to the extent that the Respondent is entitled to Rs. 1,16,000/-, being the IDV of stolen vehicle together with interest and litigation cost. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent. No order as to costs. The impugned order is modified as under. The Appellants/OPs are liable to pay Rs. 1,16,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant within 40 days from the date of this order along with interest @ 9% p.a. over this amount from the date of filing of instant case before the Ld. District Forum, i.e., 05-04-2013 till full and final payment. The Appellants shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent as litigation cost. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists – insurance co. and respondent – complainant, and perused the material on record. 8. This revision has been filed by the insurance co. under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the Order dated 26.03.2015 of the State Commission. Section 21 (b) reads as below: ….to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 9. In their arriving at the findings of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance co., we find the Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. We note in particular the observations of the two fora quoted in para 5 and 6 above. Within the meanings and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. 10. It is not disputed that the subject vehicle was insured, the premium was paid, the policy was valid, an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant, the insurance co. was informed of the theft by the complainant in writing through registered post, no malafide suspicious etc. conduct on the part of complainant was reported by the insurance co.’s investigator. 11. We find no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission in respect of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance co. 12. However, we note that the District Forum had awarded: (a): insured amount of Rs 1,16,000/- (b): interest @ 9% p.a. from 11.07.2008 i.e. the date on which the insurance co. was intimated of theft through registered post (c): compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (d): cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- The State Commission has however modified the award to the following extent: (b): interest @ 9% p.a. from 05.04.2013 i.e. the date on which the consumer complaint was filed with the District Forum (c): compensation nil. 13. We find it just, appropriate and necessary that the interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft to the insurance co. by the complainant, as also that compensation should be paid in addition for the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness. 14. There was protracted correspondence between the complainant and the insurance co. including repeated requests etc. by the complainant from the date of intimation of theft by registered post i.e. from 11.07.2008 till the date of filing of consumer complaint in the District Forum i.e. on 05.04.2013, but her claim was not settled. The complainant had a valid policy, she had duly paid the premium, she lodged an F.I.R., she intimated the insurance co., she kept on corresponding and requesting, for a period of about 4 years and 9 months, and was (then) left with no option but to seek remedy under law / approach the consumer forum (in this case). The insurance co. should have been prompt and dutiful in settling the claim within a reasonable period, that is, within a period that appears reasonable per se, and which a reasonable man will not agitate. We do not want to endorse in any manner a proposition that the interest will be paid only (and only) when a consumer (as a last resort in forced duress) approaches the consumer fora. The principle that is correct, and that we want to convey, is that the insurance co. was required to be and should have been prompt and dutiful in settling a bonafide claim, and should in no way nurture any (mis)notion that it can sit over a claim till the consumer in forced duress seeks remedy in the consumer fora. Therefore, it is just, appropriate and necessary that the interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft by the complainant to the insurance co. i.e. from 11.07.2008. 15. Interest is to offset the delay in making the due payment promptly and dutifully at the due time. Compensation is for the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness. We find the State Commission’s observation erroneous that awarding compensation as well as interest is “not tenable under the law”. As already stated, the one, interest, is to offset the delay in making the due payment promptly and dutifully at the due time, the other, compensation, is for the loss and injury, the harassment and difficulty, the uncertainty and helplessness. The protracted correspondence and requests, for about 4 years and 9 months, the forced duress to approach the consumer fora, the protracted litigation in one, two, and now three, consumer fora, definitely qualify for just, appropriate and equitable compensation, commensurate with the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness. We accordingly find the award of compensation made by the District Forum to be just, equitable, appropriate, reasonable, lawful. 16. The revision petition being misconceived and devoid of merit is dismissed with directions as below: (a): The District Forum’s award is upheld and sustained. (b): Interest @ 9% p.a. on the insured amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- is already provided for in the District Forum’s Order. It shall be paid w.e.f. the date stipulated in the District Forum’s Order i.e. from 11.07.2008 till the date of actual payment (c) : In addition the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum shall carry similar interest of 9% p.a. w.e.f 30 days of the date of pronouncement of the District Forum’s Order till the date of actual payment. 17. The District Forum’s Order with additional directions as in para 16 (c) above shall be complied with by the insurance co. within six weeks of this Order, the harassment and difficulty, the uncertainty and helplessness of the consumer should end, the chapter should close. In case of failure or omission to comply with this Order within six weeks, the District Forum shall proceed for execution as per the law, both for ‘enforcement’ under section 25 and for ‘penalties’ under section 27 of the Act 1986. 18. We add that in case the stolen vehicle is recovered, at whatever time and in whatever condition, its ownership shall vest with the insurance co. And further that if any bank / financial institution has provided loan for the subject vehicle and the loan in part or full is outstanding, the first charge on the awarded amount to that extent will be of the concerned bank / financial institution. The principal onus of informing of the latter direction to the concerned bank / financial institution shall be of the insurance co. and of the complainant, both. 19. A copy of the Order be sent to the District Forum within ten days by the Registry. 20. So disposed of. | 
