AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 501 wordsLeave granted.
These appeals challenge the final order and judgment dated 20.02.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the National Commission") passed in Revision Petition No.2372 of 2014 as well as order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the National Commission in Review Application No.174 of 2019.
In respect of theft of a truck which was covered by the terms of an insurance policy entered into between the appellant and the respondent herein, Complaint Case No.CC/641/07 was lodged with Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, District New Delhi, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The District Forum by its order dated 19.07.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent herein to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.9,73,750/- with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization. Additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards harassment and litigation cost was also ordered.
Appeal arising therefrom being First Appeal No.750 of 2012 was dismissed by the Station Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") vide its order dated 03.01.2014.
The respondent-Insurance Company being aggrieved, preferred Revision Petition No.2372 of 2014 before the National Commission.
It is a matter of record that the amount, as awarded by the District Forum, had since then been deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company and the appellant was allowed to withdraw the amount.
The Revision Petition preferred by the respondent-Insurance Company was allowed by the National Commission vide its order dated 20.02.2015.
About four years later, the appellant preferred Review Application which was also dismissed by the National Commission vide its order dated 31.05.2019. Both these orders are presently under challenge.
The matter was decided in favour of the respondent-Insurance Company by the National Commission on the ground that the theft of the vehicle occurred on 19/20.07.2006 while the First Information Report with the concerned Police Station was lodged only on 25.07.2006 and the intimation was given to the Insurance Company only on 25.07.2006. Thus, in view of the National Commission, there was no immediate reporting and, as such, the terms of the Policy stood violated.
While issuing notice in the present matter on 20.09.2019, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit the entire sum that he had received in pursuance of the direction issued by the District Forum, which was confirmed by the State Commission. The amount has since then been deposited in the Registry of this Court.
Without going into the question, whether the reporting which was done was immediate and, as such, the matter was completely covered by the policy or not, in our view, the ends of justice would be met if the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 20.09.2019 is divided equally between the parties. We order accordingly and allow the appellant to withdraw 50% of the sum deposited in the Registry of this Court while the respondent-Insurance Company shall be entitled to withdraw the balance 50% of the sum.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeals stand disposed of. No costs.