IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance company cannot repudiate a bonafide theft claim.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dt. 24.03.2014 passed by State Commission in complaint No. 73/2012 Sarvjit Dhanda vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. by which complaint was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2676150 with 7.5 % per annum interest and was further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant / respondent purchased Audi car No. PB10CT-2929 on 31.12.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2817000/- and got it insured from opposite party / petitioner for a period of one year commencing from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011 with insured value of Rs. 2676150. It was further submitted that at 10:00 pm, on 03.09.2011, car was parked near hotel Imperial from where it was stolen. Inspite of search, car could not be searched. Complainant intimated to police on 04.09.2011 in writing. Complainant also informed opposite party on 05.09.2011. It was further submitted that FIR was registered on 10.09.2011. Opposite party appointed M/s Glide Investigation and Security Services to investigate the matter to whom complainant gave original and duplicate key. Inspite of repeated requests, claim was not settled and opposite party vide letter dated 20.07.2012 repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the party of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that case requires voluminous evidence so consumer fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and only civil court is competent to decide the matter. It was further submitted that claim was rightly repudiated on account of violation of terms and conditions of policy. It was further submitted that complainant was given three keys whereas he was in possession of only two keys and he left third key in the car so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Ld. State Commission, after hearing both the parties allowed complaint as mentioned above. Opposite party filed appeal alongwith application for Condonation of delay.

3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Appellant has filed application for Condonation of delay of 79 days whereas as per office report, there is delay of only 61 days. In application for Condonation of delay, appellant submitted that certified copy of order was received on 11.04.2014 which was sent to Delhi office on 25.04.2014 and advocate provided opinion on 07.05.2014 and documents were sent to legal cell of appellant’s company at Banglore on 09.05.2014. It was further submitted that legal cell requisitioned some more documents on 20.05.2014 which were sent on 27.05.2014 and legal cell granted approval for filing appeal on 04.06.2014. It was further mentioned that counsel for appellant took some time in drafting appeal and on account of vacations, appeal could be filed on 11.07.2014 and in such circumstances, delay in filing appeal be condoned.

5. Appellant has given proper explanation for Condonation of delay and as there is delay of only 61 days in filing appeal, I deem it appropriate to condone delay in the light of latest judgment of Hon’ble Apex courts (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors., by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to respondent.

6. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that inspite of proof of delay in lodging FIR and delay in intimation to appellant and not delivering third key of the car to surveyor, Ld. State Commission committed error in allowing complaint hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, L