IMPORTANT POINT
Delay must be explained by showing sufficient cause.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The present first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.CC/14/15 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at Aurangabad (hereafter referred as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the OP/insurance company to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant had purchased a truck for consideration of Rs.16,37,692/- by availing loan from HDFC Bank. For body building of the truck, complainant spent Rs.4,27,250/- and therefore Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the policy was shown as Rs.19,50,000/-. The complainant had obtained the public carriers policy (other than three wheelers package policy) bearing No. 182401/31/2013/3544 for own damage and third party liability by depositing premium. The policy period was 24.08.2012 to 23.08.2013. On 27.02.2013, the truck was engaged for transporting iron bars from Jalna to Dhule. The material was unloaded at Dhule at about 2.00 p.m. On the same night, truck was parked in premises of Hotel “5555”, near Mohadi village. The driver asked the cleaner to sleep in the truck and he went to his home for dinner. When the driver returned in the morning at 7.00 a.m. on the next day, he found that the truck and the cleaner were missing. He tried to contact the cleaner on mobile but it was switched off. FIR was registered with Mohadi police station by the driver on 2.4.2013 and the occurrence of theft was also informed to the insurance company. Complainant submitted insurance claim with the insurance company but there was neither any response nor the claim was settled by the OP. Meanwhile, the investigation report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the JPMC, Dhule on 25.12.2013 wherein Sections 379, 406 and 34 of IPC was added to the previous charge under Section 406 IPC.

3. Aggrieved by the conduct of OP for not settling of the claim, the complainant filed a complaint before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at Aurangabad praying therein for the IDV of Rs.19,50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- as a business loss and Rs.7,50,000/- as instalments of loan with 18% interest. The complainant also claimed Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as costs.

4. The OP resisted the complaint by filing written version and submitted that it was the case of breach of trust, not the theft. The complainant did not take precautionary measure to safeguard his vehicle. Therefore, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated. The OP denied about intimation of theft within 48 hours by the complainant. The Police Inspector has no authority to add the charge of theft with original charge of breach of trust. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

5. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP/insurance company to pay Insured Declared Value of truck i.e. Rs.19,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP/appellant filed this appeal before this Commission.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Initially, we have heard the arguments on the point of delay in filing this appeal. There is a delay of 142 days to file this appeal. The reasons for the delay are explained by the appellant in paras 6 to 14, which read thus:—

“6. That the order was applied in January itself.

7. That the order was delivered some time in February to the counsel for the insurance co.

8. That on intimation by counsel the officer was deputed to contact the counsel before the State Commission and to collect file etc. in March, 2016.

9. That as the ent