SATISH vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana ( ''State Commission '' for short) in First Appeal No.363 of 2011 by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent / opposite party and reversed the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the District Forum, Rohtak and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

THERE is a delay of 73 days in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The contents of this application are vague and no explanation is offered in support of the request for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed on 23.12.2011 but he received a copy thereof on 27.4.2012 and thereafter he has filed the revision petition on 20.7.2012, i.e., within a period of 90 days which is the prescribed period of limitation. In view of this, he submitted that there is no delay. Still in para 3 of his application, the petitioner has said that even though there is no delay in filing the revision petition from the date of the receipt of the order, he has submitted the application for condonation because if the date of decision, i.e, 23.12.2011 is taken into consideration, there is a delay in filing the revision petition. Explaining the delay, the petitioner has stated that the appeal was decided ex parte in the absence of the petitioner and, therefore, he was not aware about the actual date of decision. The petitioner, however, has not specified as to how and in what manner he actually received the copy of the impugned order. In absence of any factual indication in this regard, his claim of having received the impugned order on 27.4.2012 cannot be accepted. On the other hand, perusal of certified copy of the impugned order placed on record, we find that as per the endorsement, impugned order was delivered/dispatched to the petitioner on 8.2.2012. If the impugned order was dispatched to the address of the petitioner on 8.2.2012 by post and in the natural course of circumstances, it must have been delivered to the petitioner within few days from the date of the dispatch. In the circumstances, it is clear that there is a delay in filing the revision petition for which no satisfactory or convincing explanation has been given by the petitioner. The revision petition thus is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. As regards the merits, the petitioner had insured his Escort Tractor bearing Registration No.HR-12D-2272 with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. for the period from 7.1.2008 to 6.1.2009. During the period of insurance cover, the tractor was stolen on 7.9.2008 for which the petitioner lodged the FIR in the concerned police station on 8.10.2008. Intimation about the loss of tractor was given to the Insurance Co. but when the petitioner submitted his claim, it was denied by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The respondent/opposite party contested the complaint on notice by the District Forum and in its written statement it took the plea that the petitioner/complainant had failed to inform the Insurance Co. well within the time regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle and by doing so, he had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, therefore, he was not entitled for insurable benefits. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

ON appraisal of pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted the following relief vide its order dated 19.1.2011:- " .....Accordingly, we hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the opposite parties to pay the IDV of the vehicle of the vehicle i.e. Rs.110000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from dated 19.2.2011 onwards till its realization to the complainant. However, complainant is directed to complete the necessary formalities e.g. transfer of R.C. subrogation letter and indemnity bond within a week. "

AGGRIEVED by the above order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. challenged the same in appeal before the State Commission which vide its impugned order allowed it and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. We have heard Mr. N.K. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner lodged the FIR in respect of the alleged theft of the vehicle in question after a period of 30 days. Besides this, it is also seen that the petitioner failed to inform the insurance Co. immediately after the alleged incident. In the circumstances, in line with the judgement dated 9.12.2009 of the National Commission in F.A. No.321 of 2005 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, the State Commission accepted the appeal of the OP Insurance Co. and reversed the order of the District Forum. In the absence of anything put forth before us to dispute the basic factual position by the petitioner, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. We may note that in that case (Supra), the delay in lodging the FIR was only of 2 days and that regarding the intimation to the Insurance Co. was of 9 days but even this much of delay was treated as fatal and considered as a serious violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition in limine.