Mitthoolal Prajapati Farmer S/O Shri Satai Prajapati vs National Insurance Co Ltd Through Regional Manager

THROUGH this revision petition, the original complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, M.P. (District Forum for short), Mithoolal Prajapati, has ventured to try his luck for the third time; his complaint before the District Forum and the appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission for short) having met with dismissal of his complaint.

BRIEFLY stated, Mithoolal Prajapati, the petitioner herein had purchased a tractor with trolley by obtaining a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Allahabad Bank. The said tractor with trolley was insured with the respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd. During the validity period of insurance policy, the tractor with trolley was allegedly stolen on 2nd of July, 2005 at around 11.00 a.m. when the petitioner/complainant with his driver and helper had gone to Sagar and the tractor was parked besides the Teen Madhia Talab Water Tank where they were having lunch in a nearby restaurant. While the petitioner/complainant claims that he approached the Gopal Ganj Police Station to register FIR on the same day but the police authorities rather than registering the FIR advised him to first search for the missing tractor. According to the petitioner/complainant, the FIR was finally registered only on 14th of August, 2005 after several attempts. He thereafter filed a claim along with the untraced report of the police before the respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 16th of August, 2005. The claim not being processed and finalized in time, the petitioner/complainant had approached the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, had directed the respondent-Insurance Company to inter alia settle the claim within 60 days from the date of the passing of the order. The respondent-Insurance Company thereafter repudiated the claim on the twin ground of the FIR having been lodged with a delay of 43 days from the date of alleged theft of the tractor with trolley and further for the undue delay of 45 days in filing the claim. The petitioner/complainant thereafter had filed the complaint before the District Forum for the second time alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Insurance Company. The complaint was resisted by the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company. On perusal of the evidence adduced by both the sides and after hearing the counsel for the parties and further relying upon the order passed by this Commission in the case of DevendraSingh V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC)],the District Forum held that the report of the theft was not made to the police authorities within a reasonable period. It further noted that even the Insurance Company was informed about it with a claim after an inordinate delay of 45 days. It held that the delay was fatal to the case of the petitioner/complainant and, therefore, disallowed the claim and dismissed the complaint. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the dismissal order of the District Forum met the same fate at the hands of the State Commission. Aggrieved once again that this revision petition has been filed. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant on admission.

THE delay of 45 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

IN this case, both the fora below i.e. the District Forum and the State Commission have arrived at the concurrent finding that the petitioner/complainant has taken 43 days to get the FIR about the alleged theft registered with the Gopal Ganj Police Station and has filed the claim before the respondent-Insurance Company 2 days thereafter i.e. after 45 days of the theft of the vehicle. These are acts of omissions and commissions which cannot be viewed lightly because the petitioner/complainant is a rural agricultural farmer as the learned counsel would urge. The District Forum in its order has discussed in detail as to why the story of the petitioner/complainant cannot be said to be true. It has held that the theft of the tractor and the trolley is alleged to have taken place during broad day light between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at a crowded place and yet the petitioner/complainant, who was accompanied by a driver and a helper, failed to notice anyone taking away the tractor. It has also not believed the contention of the petitioner/complainant that the police authorities refused to register the FIR in time for as long as 43 days. The petitioner/complainant ought to have approached the higher authorities if the local police station refused to register the FIR. The undue delay of 45 days with regard to the filing of the claim also has not been satisfactorily explained. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the fora below, who have correctly relied upon the order passed in DevendraSingh (supra). The facts in that case were almost similar to the one in hand and the repudiation of the claim was held to be correct even though the delay in registering the FIR in that case was only 4 days and the claim before the Insurance Company had been filed after a month. Further, being a case of concurrent finding, the role of this Commission in deciding matters in revision is highly limited, as has been held by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubi(Chandra) Dutta V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269].

UNDER the circumstances, we find absolutely no illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the revision petition in limine.