NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs ANANDI LAL

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.10.2010, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 1202/2010, "National Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as ''insurance company '') versus Anandilal & Ors. ", vide which while dismissing the appeal, order dated 07.05.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bundi in consumer complaint no. 49/2009 was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that a vehicle tractor-trolley, bearing no. RJ-08/RA-0012 was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company in the joint name of Anandi Lal and Chittar Lal vide policy no. 370801/47/05/9700001847 for the period from 17.03.2006 to 16.03.2007 for a sum insured of Rs.4,16,400/- on payment of premium of Rs.5293/-. The vehicle was allegedly stolen on the intervening night of 10.07.2006 and 11.07.2006, when it was stated to be parked outside a hotel at village Budhpura. An FIR no. 418/2006 dated 21.07.2006 under section 379 IPC was lodged with the local Police. The intimation to the Insurance Company is stated to have been given on 1.02.2007. The insurance company repudiated the claim filed by the complainant on 26.08.2008, based on the report of the investigator who stated that theft had not taken place. A complaint was filed before the District Forum. Vide order dated 07.05.2010, the District Forum directed the insurance company to pay the cost of tractor-trolley within a period of one month, along with Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation charges. An appeal filed by the insurance company before the State Commission was dismissed by them vide impugned order dated 04.10.2010. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the insurance company stated that as made out from the report of the investigator, there was no theft in this case and it was a made-up story by the complainant, Anandi Lal. He stated that the insurance policy was in the name of two persons, Anandi Lal and Chittar Lal but the complaint in question had been made by Anandi Lal only. Moreover, FIR in this case was lodged 10 days after the alleged incident. The intimation to the insurance company was also given late by 6 to 7 months. The order passed by the State Commission was vague/sketchy and they had not discussed the issues involved at all, while upholding the order of the District Forum.

IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had already deposited the amount awarded by the District Forum and hence, there was no justification for the continuance of the present petition.

THE impugned order passed by the State Commission reads as follows:- "Heard the counsels and perused the documents. The appellant has filed this appeal with the delay of 5 days. In view of the grounds mentioned in the appeal and affidavit, the delay of 5 days is condoned. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Distt. Forum. Therefore, confirming the order passed by the Distt. Forum, Bundi in appeal No. 49/2009 dated 07.05.2010 the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant before the Distt. Forum be included in the amount along with accrued interest to be paid to the complainant respondent. One month is granted to the appellant to comply with the orders from today. "

A plain reading of the above order indicates that the Rajasthan State Commission have not given any detailed reasons for agreeing with the order passed by the District Forum. It was the duty of the State Commission to carry out a detailed analysis of the issues involved in the case and give their clear findings on each issue before announcing their verdict. The main issue to be decided is whether the factum of theft is genuine or not. Moreover, the facts make it clear that the FIR was lodged with the Police after 10 days and there was a lot of delay in informing the insurance company. The investigator of the insurance company has stated that there was contradiction in the statement given before the Police and during the examination at the place of occurrence.

IN view of the above facts, it is absolutely necessary that the appellate authority should consider all the facts and circumstances in detail, analyse the same and then given their clear-cut findings. The order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, liable to be set aside and we order accordingly. This revision petition is allowed and the case is remanded back to the State Commission for hearing the parties afresh and then take a decision. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 4.11.2013.