ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 317 of 2015 styled as Sh. Somitra Mishra vs. Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Haridwar, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant purchased a vehicle ‘Sumo’ bearing registration No. UK08-TA-3340 in the month of February, 2012 which was insured vide policy No. 25331031116-320077826 for the sum insured of Rs. 5,45,343/- had valid from 07.02.2012 to 06.02.2013. The above vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 19-20 of September, 2012; a FIR was lodged and a criminal case No. 711 of 2012 under Section 379 of IPC was registered. On account of non-traceability of the same the investigation officer had filed final report on dated 03.01.2013 which was accepted by the Court of C.J.M., Haridwar vide order dated 23.11.2013. A claim was submitted before the opposite party – insurance company and the insurer sanctioned claim vide letter dated 26.03.2015 for Rs. 3,89,304/- against the sum assured Rs. 5,45,343/- althrough the complainant was entitled for the total sum insured amount. Inspite of several requests, the opposite party did not pay the rest assured amount, hence the complaint was submitted before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party had submitted its written statement alleging that the complainant breached the policy conditions by not complying with it in intimating the loss after lapse of 22 days against the mandatory provisions of policy, but insurance company agreed to make payment for a sum of Rs. 3,89,304/- only on non-standard basis subject to insured fulfilling requisite formalities laid in policy conditions. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 12.12.2018 wherein it is held as under:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

5. Against the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been submitted by the opposite party as appellant. It is alleged that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, hence perverse and is liable to be set aside. It is also averred in the appeal that the District Commission has wrongly held that the appellant cannot be permitted to assess the loss on the basis of value of said vehicle against sum assured; the District Commission did not perceive loss assessed by the insurer on non-standard basis for intimating late against mandatory provision of immediate intimation of loss in cases of theft. Therefore, the amount assessed by the surveyor is justified and the District Commission in imposing a sum of Rs. 5,45,343/- equivalent to sum assured is in excessive side, therefore, the District Commission did not consider evidence on record and exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The District Commission has also imposed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization, which is also in excessive side. Therefore, the impugned judgment should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the respondent’s vehicle ‘Sumo’ bearing registration No. UK08-TA-3340 was insured with the appellant – insurer vide policy No. 25331031116320077826 for the period from 07.02.2012 to 06.02.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle in question was stolen in the intervening night of 19-20 September, 2012 and theft report regarding the