IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Policy – Vehicle Insurance – Theft – Insurance Company cannot travel beyond the reasons stated in repudiation letter.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 19.06.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 132/2023 in which order dated 03.02.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 113/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned judgment and final order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the State Commission in FA 132/2023.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Commission.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 15.12.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on dated nil and 07.02.2024 respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

On 14.05.2014, the Complainant/Petitioner herein availed loan for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment from Magma Financer for purchasing a truck Model-Ashok Ley, which was insured with Respondent-1. The policy was valid from 14.05.2014 to 13.05.2015 and Respondent-2 is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. On 05.02.2015, the complainant engaged a Driver Kalandi Mallick, who took the said vehicle from Jharsuguda to Dehenkanal carrying Ultra Cement for delivery at Dumpyard. The driver reached at Dehenkanal on 05.02.2015. On 09.02.2015 the vehicle was found missing and FIR was lodged by the helper on 09.02.2015. After knowing such fact from the helper, the Petitioner/Complainant after being unable to trace out the vehicle, intimated the Police regarding the loss of the vehicle on 09.02.2015 before the Office I/c, Dhenkanal Police Station and FIR No. 34/2015 was registered and intimated to the State Transport Authority for necessary steps. The driver of the vehicle was arrested. On 11.02.2015, the Petitioner/Complainant intimated the said fact to the Respondent-1 Insurance Company regarding loss/theft of the vehicle and lodged Claim with Insurance Company. The Respondent-1/Insurance Company vide letter dated 12.02.2015 communicated to the petitioner/complainant should give the information in writing or through telephonic message about the theft of the vehicle within 24 hours of the theft for which they would be able to depute investigator to investigate the same immediately, but the petitioner failed to inform the same in time and requested thereunder to give them the reason of late intimation. The investigating officer of Dhenkanal town P.S. submitted a preliminary charge sheet of the G.R. Case No. 146/2015 corresponding to Dhenkanal P.S. Case No. 34 dated 09.02.2015 before the S.D.J.M. Dhenkanal. Though the petitioner submitted all the necessary and relevant documents to the Respondent-1 regarding the claim of the Petitioner’s vehicle, but Respondent-1 refused to settle the claim on the ground that the driver being accused and has been charge sheeted u/s 379/406/407/419/120(B) of IPC. On 06.04.2016, the Complainant approached the Ombudsman seeking a direction to the Insurance Company to settle the claim. The said complaint was refused and returned to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.

5. Vide Order dated 03.02.2023, in the CC No. 113/2021 the District Commission allowed the complaint and passed the order as follows:

“The case is decreed on contest against the OPs who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in thi