Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Judicial Member

The instant appeal has been preferred at the behest of the Appellant viz. Sri Paresh Nath Singha who was the original Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit—I (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Commission’ for short) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the District Commission in connection with Consumer Complaint Case no.CC/239/2018 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint case without cost against the Opposite Parties.

Fact of the case, in a nut shell, is that the Complainant (Appellant herein) is the owner of a TATA Heavy Goods 10 wheel vehicle (Truck) being Registration no. WB-41D-0687, Engine no. 80D64001875, Chassis no. 426031DRZ116358, Model no. TATA LPT 2515 EX6X2. The said Vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Burdwan, West Bengal and the said vehicle was used as a public carrier and had the National permit issued by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. The said truck was insured with the Opposite Parties/the Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Policy no. 313590-31-2016/753 valid from 04.06.2015 to 03.06.2016 and the insured value of the said policy was Rs.7,00,000/-.

On 29.04.2016 the said vehicle was sent to ACC Cement Factory at Madhukunda, Purulia with the driver namely Dilip Das to carry cement from there. At that relevant time the driver told to the Complainant that he would go to Burdwan Motor Vehicles Department for obtaining certificate of fitness and thereafter he will go to the aforesaid destination to carry the cement. Pertinent to mention here that the driver of the said truck had a valid driving licence.

Further case of the Complainant, is that, after three to four days the Complainant tried to call the driver on several times but his phone was in switched off condition. Finding no other alternative the Complainant contacted the Manager of the ACC Cement Factory, Madhukunda, Purulia over phone who informed that the said vehicle did not reach ACC Cement Factory.  The GPS system of the vehicle was also disconnected.  Subsequently, the Complainant contacted with the wife of the driver but failed to gather any information about the said truck and also the driver.

Ultimately, Complainant went to Chakdaha P.S.  Nadia on 06.05.2016 and submitted written complaint over the said incident to the Inspector-In-Charge.  On 08.05.2016 the said written complaint was treated as F.I.R.  Police initiated a criminal case being F.I.R. No. 291/2016 dated 08.05.2016 under Sections 407/120B of the I.P.C. vide GDE No. 290 dated 05.05.2016. Subsequently, Police authority submitted charge sheet after the completion of investigation. Complainant intimated the said incident to the Insurance Company immediately.  In the charge sheet it has been stated that the accused confessed the guilt. It has been also stated that the vehicle in question could not be recovered or traced out.

Further case of the Complainant, is that, he intimated the said incident to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited through letters and submitted the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- on 06.05.2016 before the Opposite Parties as the amount of loss of vehicle suffered by the Complainant due to such theft.  On receipt of the information of theft, claim form from the Complainant, the Opposite Party/Insurance Company appointed an Investigator to investigate the incident.  Complainant submitted all the relevant documents as per requirement before the Investigator in order to substantiate the claim.

It has been categorically alleged that the Opposite Party/Insurance Company kept themselves idle for a long period and the claim was kept pending in spite of several request and representation made by the Complainant.  On 02.05.2018 the Complainant received a letter from the OP/Insurance Company wherein it was stated that the claim of the Complainant was not tenable on the following grounds:

“Insured vehicle was taken by your paid driver and F.I.R. was lodged as criminal breach of trust against the said driver. Hence, Insurer`s liabilities under the policy is not at all admissible.”  On 02.05.2018 the claim of the Complainant was repudiated for the reasons indicated in the said letter.  According to the Complainant he submitted all the relevant papers and documents and the police report before the authority concerned.  The same has not been disputed by the Insurance Company.  The repudiation has been confirmed within two weeks from the receipt of the letter of the Complainant.  On 12.06.2018 the Complainant issued a legal notice through his Advocate Mr. Bipul Chanda to the Opposite Parties with a request to reconsider the claim and make payment of the same.  It has been clearly alleged that the repudiation of the claim by the OP/Insurance Company was illegal, improper and contrary to the terms of the policy.  The Complainant has further alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of both the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has prayed for passing necessary order in terms of the prayer more particularly described in the schedule to the complaint petition.  The cause of action for the instant appeal arose on 06.05.2016 while the Complainant launched the written complaint before the Police Authority.  The cause of action lastly arose on 02.05.2018 and the same is continuing day by day.  The Complainant prayed for necessary direction upon the OPs to settle the claim as well as compensation and litigation cost.

On the other hand OP Nos. 1 & 2 the respective Respondents herein contested the complaint case by filing written version wherein they denied all the material allegations brought against them in the body of the petition of complaint.  It has been stated that the vehicle of the Complainant was insured with the OPs with certain terms and conditions as specified in the policy documents.  It has been also stated that after the incident of loss of the vehicle the Complainant informed the incident to the Insurance Company and also submitted the claim form along with other documents.  It is the categorical version of the OPs that the incident occurred on 29.04.2016, a G.D was lodged on 08.05.2016 i.e. after a long lapse of time from the happening of the incident.  It has been candidly contended that the police investigated the case and the driver of the said vehicle was arrested and that said driver confessed his guilt by saying that he sold the said vehicle to one Giajul Alam Khan.  According to the defence driver of the said vehicle was entrusted with the vehicle and the case was proceeded under Section 407 IPC (i.e. Criminal Branch of Trust by the driver of the vehicle). It has been further contended that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy loss due to criminal breach of trust by the carrier is not covered under the said policy and hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount.  The OPs prayed for outright dismissal of the complaint case with costs.

After considering the pleadings of the respective parties to the complaint case and having considered the evidence (both oral and documentary) on record Ld. Commission below was pleased to dismiss the complaint case on contest without costs against the OPs/Insurance Company.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above judgment and order of the Ld. District Commission the Complainant as Appellant has preferred the present appeal on various grounds as highlighted in the memorandum of appeal.  It has been contended in the memorandum of appeal that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order basing upon assumption and presumption ignoring the actual facts and documents on record; that the impugned order of the Ld. Commission below is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to law; that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order without proper application of judicial mind; that the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at a wrong conclusion causing hardship and injustice to the Appellants; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that the vehicle in question was stolen and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged on 06.05.2016 and a criminal case was also initiated at the instance of the Police under Section 407/120B of the IPC; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R from the end of the Complainant/Appellant; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that the claim was placed on 06.05.2016 i.e. within a reasonable time from the date of happening the incident; that the Ld. Commission below failed to consider the fact that the Insurance Company kept themselves idle in settling the claim of the Complainant and ultimately repudiated the said claim; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that such performance on the part of the Insurance Company tantamounts to deficiency in service; that the Ld. Commission below wrongly held that criminal breach of trust by the carrier does not come within the purview of the terms and conditions of the policy in question and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to settle the claim of the Complainant.  On all such grounds the Appellant has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

I) Whether the Ld. Commission below was justified in passing the impugned Judgment and order.

II) Whether the Ld. Commission below has committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned Judgment and order.

III) Whether the impugned Judgement and order deserve interference of this Appellate Commission.

IV) Whether the impugned Judgment and order can be sustained in the eye of law.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the above points are taken up together for the sake of brevity of discussion and in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions.  Moreover, all the points are interlinked and interrelated with each other. 

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has argued that the Respondents/Insurance Company are guilty of wilful negligence and deficiency in their services. It has been submitted that the Respondent/Insurance Company has caused enormous mental pain and emotional set back to the Appellant/Complainant by not settling the claim of the Complainant within the stipulated period as per guidelines of IRDA. It has been also argued that the Respondent/Insurance Company intentionally neglected to settle the claim amount of the Appellant/Complainant and as such the Appellant/Complainant is certainly entitled to get compensation and litigation cost as sought for. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the Appellant/Complainant supplied all the relevant documents to the Respondent/Insurance Company in order to establish his legitimate claim but the Respondent/Insurance Company repudiated the said claim of the Appellant/Complainant on baseless ground. According to the Ld. Counsel such repudiation of the claim is highly illegal, improper and contrary to the terms of the Insurance policy. It has been further argued that there is no mention of any terms and conditions basing upon which the claim of the Appellant/Complainant was repudiated. Ld. Counsel has vehemently urged that the repudiation by the Respondents/Insurance Company was arbitrary and not according to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Drawing our attention to paragraph 10 of the written version Ld. Counsel has further argued that the Respondent/Insurance Company admitted the incident of theft of the vehicle in question. The Respondent/Insurance Company has further admitted that the theft of the vehicle in question was duly intimated to the Respondent/Insurance Company. It has been also argued that on 29.04.2016 the said truck in question was sent with the driver namely Dilip Das and the said driver told the Appellant that he would go to Burdwan Motor Vehicles Department for obtaining certificate of fitness and thereafter he will go to the aforesaid destination to carry cement. The Appellant/Complainant tried to contact the driver on several times but the telephone of the driver was found in switched off condition. Ultimately, the Appellant/Complainant contacted with the Manager of ACC Cement Factory, Madhukunda, Purulia who informed that said vehicle in question did not reach the ACC Cement Factory. In such condition the Appellant/Complainant lodged the FIR before Nadia Police Station on 06.05.2016 about the said incident of theft by filing written complaint. No inordinate delay is caused in filing the written complaint by the Appellant before the Police Station. Ld. Counsel has further argued that Police submitted charge sheet after the completion of investigation. In the said charge sheet accused confessed that he sold the said vehicle in question (lorry) to Jiajul Alam Khan. According to the Ld. Counsel such aspect clearly proves that the vehicle in question was stolen by the accused. The plea as taken by the Respondent/Insurance Company; “that the driver having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the insured vehicle and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy do not cover breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.” has no legs to stand upon. Ld. Counsel has prayed for allowing the present appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Ld. District Commission below.

On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent/Insurance Company has advanced an elaborate argument on the point of delayed intimation of the incident to the Insurance Company. It has been submitted that after considering all aspects from all angles Ld. Commission below came to a definite conclusion and passed the judgment and order. The said judgment and order are absolutely correct, just, proper, appropriate and in accordance with law. According to the Respondents/Insurance Company the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant in order to harass and cause economic loss to the Respondents/Insurance Company. It has been categorically submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/Insurance Company. It has been also argued that the vehicle of the Appellant bearing Registration no. WB-41D-0687 (TATA LPT 2515 Truck) was insured with the Respondents/Insurance Company under Policy no. 313590/31/2016/753 of commercial vehicle package policy with certain terms and conditions. The incident occurred on 29.04.2016 and a General Diary was lodged to the Police Authority of Chakdaha Police Station by the Complainant on 08.05.2016 at 18:05 hours. For such delayed intimation the Appellant/Complainant is not also entitled to get any relief as sought for. It has been also argued that the Police Authority after investigation submitted final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Ld. Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nadia. The said final report goes to show that the driver of the said vehicle was arrested and on being interrogated he confessed his guilt by uttering that he sold the vehicle in question to one Giajul Alam Khan and the said case was proceeded under Section 407 IPC (Criminal breach of trust) against the driver of the said vehicle. According to the Ld. Counsel as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the loss of the vehicle was to be intimated to the Police Authority immediately after the occurrence of the incident but herein the present case the alleged incident occurred on 29.04.2016 but the intimation was given on 08.05.2016 and as such the Appellant/Complainant is not entitled to get the claimed amount. It has been vehemently urged that offence under Section 407 of the IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust would not attract the terms and conditions of the policy. Ld. Counsel has prayed for outright dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Admittedly, the Appellant/Complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question (TATA Heavy Goods 10 wheel Truck) being Registration no.WB-41D-0687, Engine no. 80D64001875, Chassis no.426031DRZ116358, Model no. TATA LPT 2515 EX6X2. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Burdwan, West Bengal. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question (Truck) was duly insured with the Respondents/Insurance Company under Policy no. 313590/31/2016/753 valid from 04.06.2015 to 03.06.2016 having the insured value of Rs. 7,00,000/-.

It is the specific case of the Appellant/Complainant that on 29.04.2016 the vehicle in question (truck) was sent with the driver viz. Dilip Das having valid driving licence to ACC Cement Factory at Madhukunda, Purulia in order to carry cement. The driver told the Appellant/Complainant that at first he would go to Burdwan Motor Vehicles Department for obtaining the Fitness Certificate (CF) and thereafter he will go to the aforesaid destination.

It is also the case of the Appellant/Complainant that after three to four days the Appellant/Complainant tried to contact with the driver on several times but his telephone was found in switched off condition. Getting no other alternative the Appellant/Complainant contacted with the Manager of ACC Cement Factory, Madhukunda, Purulia who informed that the said vehicle (truck) did not reach in the ACC Cement Factory. The Appellant/Complainant made several attempt to contact with the driver but failed to do so.  The Appellant/Complainant also contacted with the wife of the said driver but failed to gather any information of the vehicle in question and the driver. Ultimately, Appellant/Complainant went to Chakdaha Police Station, Nadia on 06.05.2016 and submitted written complaint before the Inspector-in-Charge. The said written complaint was treated as FIR on 08.05.2016. Police Authority initiated investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge sheet on 20.08.2016. It is the categorical version of the Appellant/Complainant that he also intimated the incident to the Respondent/Insurance Company immediately. Further case of the Appellant/Complainant is that in the charge sheet the accused driver confessed his guilt. It was also disclosed that the vehicle in question could not be traced out and recovered. The Complainant submitted a claim of Rs. 7,00,000/- before the Respondents/Insurance Company being the amount of loss of the vehicle suffered by him due to such theft of the vehicle. It has been alleged by the Appellant/Complainant that the OP/Insurance Company kept themselves mum for a prolonged period and the claim of the Complainant kept pending despite several request and  representation made on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant.

Ultimately, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the Appellant/Complainant by their letter dated 02.05.2018. It has been categorically contended that the claim of the Complainant is not tenable on the ground of “insured vehicle was taken away by your paid driver and FIR was lodged being criminal breach of trust against the driver of the vehicle hence insurer’s liability towards policy is not admissible”. In that letter of repudiation the Complainant was given one more opportunity to substantiate his claim against such repudiation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the letter. It has been also disclosed that if no response is received within two weeks in that event the claim stands repudiated for the reasons indicated above without further advices from their end (the Oriental Insurance Company Limited). On 12.06.2018 the Complainant issued a legal notice through his Ld. Counsel to the Respondent/Insurance Company requesting them to reconsider the claim and to make payment but the Respondent/Insurance Company did not pay any heed to it. Under such compelling circumstances and finding no other alternative the Appellant/Complainant was compelled to institute the complaint case.

It is evident from the evidence on record that the Respondent/Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Appellant/Complainant on the very ground of submission of charge sheet under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said vehicle. According to the Respondent/Insurance Company the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy do not cover the commission of criminal breach of trust as envisaged under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. It is crystal clear from the evidence (both oral and documentary) on record that the vehicle in question was entrusted with the driver viz. Dilip Das for a specific purpose and the said driver proceeded towards its destination (ACC Cement Factory at Madhukunda, Purulia but afterwards the Appellant/Complainant did not trace out the vehicle and its driver despite best attempt. Submission of charge sheet goes to prove that the vehicle in question was found missing on the way to ACC Cement Factory, Madhukunda at Purulia. The Complainant lodged a written complaint over the incident before the police station. After completion of investigation Police submitted charge sheet under Section 407 IPC against the driver of the said vehicle.

The issue involved in this appeal came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited—vs.—Neerja Singh IV (2018) CPJ 93 (NC). In the above referred case the insured truck was taken by the driver, who thereafter could not be located and an FIR against him was registered. The claim lodged by the insured was rejected on the ground that the driver having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the insured vehicle, the loss was not covered under the Insurance policy. Rejecting the contention the Hon’ble National Commission inter alia held as under:-

“6. As far as the second plea taken by the insurer is concerned, it has repeatedly been held by this Commission, that such a case would constitute theft in terms of the definition given in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code though it may also constitute a criminal breach of trust. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition no. 2601 of 2017—Oriental Insurance Company Limited—vs.—Dhanraj Surana, decided on 31.10.2017.”

The decision of this Commission in Dhanraj Surana (supra), to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

“4. The only question which arises for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether this was a case of theft of the vehicle or not. If it was a case of theft, the claim in terms of the insurance policy was payable to the Complainant. An identical issue came up for consideration of this Commission in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited—vs.—Ms. Paramjit Kaur, Revision Petition no.2159 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 and the following view was taken:-

Admittedly, the vehicle was insured inter alia against loss on account of (i) burglary, house breaking or theft, (ii) by malicious act. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the loss of truck in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be construed to be covered by theft or by malicious act or not? An identical issue came for consideration before this Commission in S. Bhagat Singh—vs.—The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, RP no. 7 of 1991 decided by Bench of Four Members on 03.10.1991. In the above referred case, the taxi owned by the Complainant which used to be driven by the driver employed by him left with some passengers in it, but thereafter the whereabouts of the taxi and the driver could not be known. Intimation having been given to the Insurance Company, the matter was investigated by the Insurer. No claim however was being paid. Being aggrieved, the Complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was registered on the ground that it was a case of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust and not a case of theft. Rejecting the contention of the insurance company, this Commission inter alia held as under:-

After considering the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that the present case is one of theft. Criminal breach of trust is defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on the record to show that the driver had any dishonest intention to misappropriate or convert to his own use the taxi car when he left taxi stand Kamla Nagar Market on the night in question with passengers in it. It is possible that the driver might have been murdered or relieved of the taxi by the passengers. It is for the Respondent company to allege and prove that the case falls under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. There is the bare allegation of the Respondent company that the case is of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust. The case had been investigated by an officer of the Respondent company. It has not been stated by the Company that said investigation revealed facts contrary to the facts alleged by the Complainant.

Even if it is assumed that the driver dishonestly took away the taxi car, even then the case would fall under Section 378, Indian Penal Code wherein “theft” has been defined. The present case is fully covered by illustration (d) appended to that Section. The said illustration reads as follows:-

D) A, being J’s servant, an entrusted by J with the care of J’s plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without J’s consent. A has committed theft. In the present case driver was entrusted with the taxi car. He did not take it back to Dehradun but has gone away somewhere either with the passenger or after they had alighted from it on way to Dehradun. As noticed earlier, the taxi car was to ply only between Dehradun and Delhi. Thus, the driver in the present case will be deemed to have committed theft of the taxi car.”

Transfer of possession of goods therefore is a sine qua non for entrustment. The person must be handed over the possession of the property. Illustration (d) appended to Section 378 IPC envisages a situation of this nature. It by no stretch of imagination would have contemplated a situation where unknown customer would have committed theft.

It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company that during the course of interrogation the driver confessed his guilt by saying that he sold the lorry to one Ziajul Alam Khan and as such the investigating officer submitted charge sheet under Section 407 of the IPC against the driver of the said vehicle. According to the Ld. Counsel Criminal breach of trust do not cover under the policy in question and for such very reason the Appellant/Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. Criminal breach of trust has been defined under the Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which runs as follows: -

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Section 407 provides the punishment for the offence criminal breach of trust by carrier. The Respondents/OPs in their written version did not deny the incident of theft of the vehicle in question on that relevant date and time.

On the point of contention of delay it is apparent from the case record that the alleged incident was occurred on 29.04.2016 and the Appellant/Complainant submitted written complaint over the incident before the concerned officer of Chakdaha Police Station, Nadia on 06.05.2016. The said written complaint was registered as FIR on 08.05.2016. It also reveals that the Appellant/Complainant intimated the said incident to the Respondent/Insurance Company. It has been argued much that for such delayed intimation to the Police Station the Appellant/Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as claimed in the complaint petition. The alleged incident occurred on 29.04.2016 and the intimation to the Police Authority was given on 08.05.2016. The Respondents/OPs unequivocally admitted that intimation regarding loss and/or theft of the vehicle in question was duly informed to the Insurance Company. It is crystal clear that there is a delay of only four days in intimating the incident both to the Police Station and to the Insurance Company. Such four days delay is not at all fatal for the Appellant/Complainant. It is to be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and it has been enacted in order to protect the interest of the Consumers. Thus, it is apparent that there is a negligible delay in lodging the complaint before the Police Station and also intimating the incident to the Insurance Company. During such period the Appellant/Complainant was badly engaged in tracing out the vehicle in question.  Such aspect is quite natural for a prudent man.  In our considered view the Respondents/Insurance Company were not at all justified in repudiating the claim of the Appellant/Complainant on the ground of delay.  

Considering the submissions of both sides and keeping in mind the pleadings of the respective parties and evidence on record we have come to an irresistible conclusion that the present case is one of theft. Mere registering a criminal case under Section 407 of the IPC and submission of charge sheet under Section 407 IPC does not stand as a bar in order to get the insurance claim. Practically, no such evidence has come on record to establish that the driver had any dishonest intention to misappropriate or convert or sell the vehicle in question on that relevant date and time. Criminal breach of trust as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents/Insurance Company cannot be and should not be taken into account. In our considered view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents/Insurance Company are without any justification. The circumstance goes to establish beyond doubt that the vehicle in question was not dishonestly taken by the driver on that relevant date and time.

Keeping in mind the cited decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble NCDRC we have no option left but to conclude that the Respondents/Insurance Company refused the claim of the Appellant/Complainant unwarrantedly and unjustly. The ground of repudiation of the claim of the Appellant/Complainant by the Respondents/Insurance Company cannot be accepted on any score. We find sufficient reason to disagree with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission.  The findings and ultimate conclusion of the Ld. Commission below cannot sustain in the eye of Law.

In view of aforementioned elaborate discussion and with our profound respect to the cited decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission we hold and firmly hold that the Respondents/Insurance Company were not justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant/Complainant. The Appellant/Complainant is certainly entitled to get the relief as prayed for. The impugned judgment and order require to be set aside.

All the points are thus answered in favour of the Appellant/Complainant.

In the result, the present appeal succeeds.

It is, therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the present appeal being First Appeal no. A/580/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondents/Insurance Company but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.

The impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit—I in connection with Consumer Complaint Case no. CC/239/2018 are hereby set aside.

The Respondents/Insurance Company are directed to settle the claim of the Appellant/Complainant amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- (Seven Lakh) as per terms of the Insurance Policy within two months from the date of passing this order. The Appellant/Complainant shall also be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the date of actual payment.

That the Appellant/Complainant is further entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost from the Respondents/Insurance Company. Appellant/Complainant is at liberty to realize the decreetal dues through the process of execution in case of non-payment of the above decreetal dues by the Respondents/Insurance Company within the stipulated period.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Thus, the Appeal stands disposed of.

Note accordingly.