Order No. 7 date: 01-06-2018

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellant.

By such petition, it is stated by the Appellant that on 17-12-2016 his Ld. Advocate intimated him the fate of the complaint case.  Thereafter, owing to illness of his wife, as also of himself, he could not properly liaison with the concerned Ld. Advocate during the period from 20-12-2016 to 14-04-2017.  Besides this, he had some monetary problem also.  For all these reasons, the Appeal could not be filed in time.

Heard the parties in the matter and perused the documents on record.

Appellant has filed two medical certificates in order to establish the illness of his wife as well as himself during the period from 20-12-2016 to 14-04-2017.  Significantly, if the concerned certificates are to be believed, while Appellant’s wife suffered from Rheumatic fever from 20-12-2016 to 15-02-2017, the Appellant himself suffered from piles from 20-02-2017 to 14-04-2017 and as it turns out, both of them were treated by the same Homeopathic physician.

I find it indeed strange that, not a single medical bill or prescription or pathological report is placed on record to complement the medical certificates towards their alleged prolonged treatment. 

I am afraid but such portrayed illness of two family members, one after another at such close interval cannot be shrugged off as a mere coincidence.  In absence of supporting medical papers as mentioned hereinabove, the medical certificates cannot be accepted at their face value.  That apart, it is also hardly believable that while Appellant’s wife was suffering from Rheumatic fever, he too was totally confined to his residence for long two months which prevented him from coordinating with the concerned Ld. Advocate. 

Thus, the reasons, as put forth by the Appellant to justify delayed filing of this Appeal by 109 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) does not appear convincing to me.  Accordingly, I am not inclined to allow this petition.

That apart, on going through the documents on record, I find no merit in this Appeal. 

It is very much apparent from the documents on record that the Appellant was quite negligent in ensuring proper safety and security of the subject vehicle.  Further, it appears that the Appellant lodged FIR with the Police Station after 3 days since occurrence of the alleged incident. 

In this regard, it is clarified by the Appellant that on 25-08-2012, he noticed that the subject vehicle went missing and therefore, he immediately rushed to the local Police Station, who refused to accept his complaint at that time and asked him to find out with the financier whether they repossessed the vehicle or not. Accordingly, on 27-08-2012, he visited the bank where he came to know that the said bank did not take any coercive action like seizure of the subject vehicle and thereafter on 28-08-2012, he lodged FIR. 

Significantly, it is stated by the Appellant in his petition of complaint that he purchased the subject vehicle with the financial assistance rendered by the Respondent Banker in February, 2012 and thereafter started paying instalments regularly.  If that was indeed the case, one wonders, why the financier would unnecessarily repossess the vehicle. If the Appellant was indeed confident that he did not make any default in paying EMIs, there was no need for him to cross-check with the financier bank as to whether the subject vehicle was repossessed by them or not.  That apart, banks normally issue notice to the customer concerned to pay up the outstanding dues before repossessing a hypothecated vehicle.  No such copy is furnished by the Appellant. If the local Police Station was indeed reluctant to accept any FIR, he could send the same through Registered/Speed Post or he could even approach the higher authorities of the Police to accept the FIR.

That apart, if the local Police Station indeed advised the Appellant to get in touch with the financier bank on 25-08-2012, it is not understood, why the Appellant visited the said bank after two days on 27-08-2012. 

No doubt, in terms of the conditions laid down under the subject policy, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to give due intimation in writing to both the Police as well as Insurance Company immediately which he did not do.  In my considered opinion, since timely intimation to the Police Station was extremely vital to intercept the stolen vehicle, by neglecting to lodge FIR forthwith, the Appellant committed material breach of policy condition.  Therefore, he did not deserve any relief whatsoever in the matter.  By dismissing the complaint, accordingly, the Ld. District Forum committed no illegality. 

Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.