NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under sec. 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act") assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (in short, "State Commission") in Appeal No. 214 of 2014 dtd. 11/5/2016 arising out of order dtd. 4/3/2014 in complaint no. 30 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Begusarai (in short, "District Forum").

(2.) The facts of the case in brief as stated by the petitioner are that petitioner had obtained insurance coverage for his car bearing registration number BR-01-BC-4247 vide policy no. 54080531110100000857 for the period 28/10/2011 to 27/10/2012. During this period, on 30/10/2011 the vehicle was stolen when parked at a public place. An FIR was lodged with the police on 3/11/2011 and the insurance company/petitioner was intimated on 12/12/2011. The petitioner deputed an investigator to investigate the loss who submitted a report on 20/9/2012 pointing out breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the claim was repudiated in terms of the breach committed by the respondent.

(3.) The respondent filed complaint no 30 of 2013 before the District Forum claiming Rs.5,18,160.00 for the theft of the car from Simariya Ghat, Begusarai which was not settled by the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that intimation of theft had been delayed which was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complaint was contested on the ground that the FIR was lodged after 4 days and the intimation to the petitioner was sent after 44 days. It was also stated that required documents were not shared. The claim was repudiated on 31/5/2013 on the ground that there was no deficiency in service. Based on evidences led by both parties, the District Forum on 11/5/2016 concluded that the claim was wrongly repudiated and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.5,18,160.00 along with interest at 9% and litigation cost of Rs.5,000.00. The petitioner's appeal before the State Commission in Appeal no. 214 of 2014 was dismissed on 11/5/2016 and the order of the District Forum affirmed. This order of the State Commission is impugned before us on the ground that the State Commission acted arbitrarily and without application of mind. It is contended that the impugned order overlooked the terms of the policy and the admitted delay of intimation to the police and the insurance company/petitioner which constituted a breach of the policy. It is contended that condition 5 of the policy requiring the insured to take utmost care of the vehicle was also violated resulting in the loss of the vehicle and therefore the claim was not payable. It is contended that both the fora below ignored the contract of indemnity and passed orders mechanically overlooking material facts and therefore it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.