ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.02.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 153 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 12.02.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 36 of 2007.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) as also learned counsel for the complainant (the respondent herein) and the complainant in person. We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 12.02.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 04.02.2016 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay and the petition.

3. This petition has been filed with reported delay of 64 days.

The learned counsel for the insurance co. has no objection to the delay being condoned, and submits that the petition may be decided on merit.

In the interest of justice, and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance co., as well as to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.

4. The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the theft of the insured vehicle.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 12.02.2008 examined the facts of the case and directed that the complainant to seek remedy in the competent civil court (“Hence the complainant is directed to seek remedy in Civil Court. This order will not prejudice the case of either party.”). The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 04.02.2016 accepted the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the insurance co. to pay the insured amount of the stolen vehicle with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

5. It is admitted by both sides that the vehicle was purchased on 29.11.2002 and was insured on 19.12.2002. However, according to the complainant the vehicle was stolen from Bodhgaya, P.S. Bodhgaya on 23.12.2002 i.e. after the insurance was taken, while according to the insurance co. the vehicle was stolen from Kaohhar Kainur, P.S. Kudra on 18.12.2002 i.e. before the insurance was taken. As such the crucial point of fact involved in this case is regarding the place and date of the theft.

6. After the FIR was registered by the complainant the crime was investigated by the police. The police filed its report on completion of investigation before the competent court in which there was nothing as could be construed to imply that the incident was not true i.e. there was nothing that could raise any question on the place and date of the theft as reported by the complainant in his first information to the police. The final police report stated that the vehicle could not be traced and the miscreants could not be apprehended. The insurance co. was represented before the court and its issues and contentions regarding the place and date of the incident were considered by the court. The court vide its Order dated 03.12.2013 accepted the police report, which Order was not agitated any further by the insurance co.

7. In this backdrop the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the complainant. Its Order of 04.02.2016 is reproduced below for reference:—

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

The fact that the vehicle in question which was stolen and was insured by the respondent – Insurance Company is not in dispute. The claim amount not settled on the ground in pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by the complainant. The police is investigating the case and the respondent – Insurance Company is waiting for the submission of the Police report.

Learned counsel for both the parties has now accepted that the final police report has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In view of the above, held by both the parties that it will be just and proper that the Insurance Company should pay the insured amount withi