NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the interim order dtd. 1/8/2018 in Appeal No. 1535/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the 'State Commission') arising out of order dtd. 11/8/2017 in Consumer Complaint No. 101 of 2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad (in short, the 'District Forum'). This order will also dispose of revision petition no. 861 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner assailing the same order.

(2.) The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that respondent/complainant had taken a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy for bus with chassis number 113905 (registration no. UP 14 AD 9799) from the petitioner Insurance Company for the period 18/11/2013 to 17/11/2014. The respondent reported that the vehicle was stolen around midnight on 19/11/2013 and an FIR was lodged on 19/11/2013 in Police Station, Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad and the petitioner/insurance company was informed on 2/2/2013. The petitioner states that the FIR does not explain reasons for delay in filing of the FIR. Petitioner appointed Royal Associates as the investigator. Based on their report, the claim was repudiated on 23/2/2015 on the grounds that the bus lacked a fitness certificate at the time of theft, the chassis number on the pre-inspection report was tampered with as some digits were missing and there was delay of 10 days in filing the FIR and 14 days in intimating the petitioner. Condition no.1 of the policy was, therefore, violated. Upon receiving a representation from the insured, the matter was reconsidered by the petitioner. However, the investigator reiterated his findings regarding the tampering of the chassis number and the claim was finally repudiated on 28/5/2015.

(3.) Respondent approached the District Forum which disallowed the complaint on contest vide order dtd. 11/8/2017 on the grounds that there was no deficiency in service. The State Commission, however, held that the theft of the bus could not be doubted on the basis of the final report filed by the police in the FIR before the ACJM Court and allowed the appeal. The instant appeal is filed on the grounds that (i) the State Commission erred in not appreciating the delay of 10 days in lodging of the FIR and that the District Forum rightly held that call records of the respondent had not been produced to prove that the police had been immediately informed telephonically as claimed; (ii) the investigator's report was not appreciated with regard to the tampering of the chassis number of the vehicle even though the number on the registration certificate, copy of the policy and the FIR tally, the tracing taken by the RTO while registering the vehicle was different at the time of pre-registration; (iii) the delay of 10 days in registering the FIR and 14 days in intimating the insurance company was not explained as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, CA no. 6739 of 2010 and the judgment of this Commission in P Khamar Pasha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP No. 724 of 2018 which held that reason for delay in making claim has to be satisfactorily explained; (iv) the investigator reported that the bus was parked for over 11 months at ALT Bus Stand and that its fitness and permit had already expired and had not been renewed prior to the theft; and (v) it was also reported that at the time of theft the vehicle had been parked near Santosh Hospital and the circumstances of theft were doubtful.