NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUNIL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons cited in the affidavit, the delay of 5 days is condoned.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the 'State Commission') in CC No. 132 of 2012, the Opposite Party/Insurance Company preferred this first Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the "Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 19,21,750/- towards the claim amount with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of actual payment, together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 20,000/-.

(3.) Succinctly put, the brief facts which are material to the case are: that the Complainant insured his JCB Machine with the Appellant/Insurance Company covering the period 20.08.2008 to 19.08.2009 for an amount of Rs. 19,21,176/-. While so, the vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 18/19.07.2009 on road No. 56, ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi. An FIR was lodged and the case was investigated and the Police submitted their final report on 02.09.2009 stating that the vehicle could not be traced. The Complainant averred that the intimation of theft was immediately given to the Insurance Company and a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The Complainant received a letter dated 11.8.2009 and 17.8.2009 from the Investigator, Mr. Lakshman Dass Arora, in which certain documents were demanded and the same were furnished by the Complainant. The Complainant also received another letter on 08.01.2010 seeking clarifications about the date of theft, DD Report of the Police and the statement of driver, for which the Complainant immediately replied giving all the details. Inspite of repeated requests, the Appellant did not choose to settle the claim and the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.7.2010 for which he received a reply on 3.5.2011 from the Opposite Party repudiating his claim. Vexed with the attitude of the Complainant, the Appellant approached the State Commission seeking direction to the Appellant herein for settlement of the claim with interest, compensation and costs.