IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of theft insurance claim on ground of delay in intimation to insurance company found not justified.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner insurance co.

Perused the material on record.

2. This case relates to repudiation of an insurance claim re the theft of a tractor.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 16.02.2012 allowed the complaint. It directed the opposite party no. 1 insurance co. (the petitioner herein) to pay the insured value of Rs. 3,30,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- (total Rs. 3,35,000/-) to the complainant within two months, failing which the total amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 20.08.2015 dismissed the appeal.

This revision petition was filed on 13.10.2015 in challenge to the said Order dated 20.08.2015 of the State Commission.

4. The claim was repudiated on the sole ground of delay in intimation to the insurance co.

It is however admitted that after the theft of the insured tractor on 17/18.09.2008, the complainant made an application in the court on 19.09.2008, on direction of the court an FIR under Section 379 IPC Punishment for theft was lodged by the police on 29.09.2008, the police investigated the case, it did not find that any false information had been given by the complainant. It is also admitted that the premium had been paid, the policy was valid.

5. The State Commission has passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. The award made by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. On the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

6. It is not out of place to say that the complainant had got his tractor financed from the respondent no. 2 co-op. bank. Not dutifully satisfying the insurance claim in a timely manner, intransigently agitating the matter from 2009 to 2021 in one, two and then three consumer protection fora, inter alia added to the complainant’s troubles apropos the financing co-op. bank.

7. On 12.02.2020 the following Order was made by this Commission:

The Counsel who was representing Respondent No. 1 informs that Respondent No. 1 has expired in August, 2019. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to take steps to bring his legal heirs on record.

- - -

8. No application for substitution of the legal heirs of the respondent no. 1 i.e. the complainant has been filed by the petitioner insurance co. till date.

9. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2009 under the Act 1986, whose statement of objects and reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. The instant revision petition was filed in 2015 apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below. We are now in 2021.

10. No application for substitution of the legal heirs of the respondent no. 1 i.e. the complainant has been filed, despite the specific direction of 12.02.2020. The petitioner insurance co. has failed to comply with the direction for over one year.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for further time to take steps to bring the legal heirs on record.

12. Sufficient opportunity, and more, has been provided to the petitioner insurance co. to bring the legal heirs on record (the petitioner is itself responsible to ensure all the requisite procedural requirements in the conduct of its case).

Request for further time is politely declined.

13. In the afore facts and situation, it is felt lawful, just, equitable and conscionable to summarily dismiss this petition.

14. To ensure the ends of justice, the petitioner, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its chief executive, is directed to make good the award made by the District Forum vide its Order dated 16.