The Consumer Protection Act prioritizes consumer interests, allowing claims to proceed despite delays if satisfactorily explained, emphasizing pragmatic interpretation over hyper-technicality.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1352 of 2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, Shri Hari Krishna Maheshwari owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No.UP.66.E.9989 had taken insurance from the petitioner insurance company vide policy No.30020031116300005537 from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012. The said vehicle came to be sold by the insured to the respondent herein about 5 months prior to the date of alleged theft of the vehicle. That on 20.12.2011, the said vehicle was stolen. Accordingly, a claim came to be lodged by the respondent who was the new owner/Power of Attorney holder of the vehicle. That on 07.08.2013, the claim of the respondent came to be repudiated by the petitioner insurance company.

2.1 Aggrieved, the respondent owner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“District Commission” for short]. By order dated 15.06.2017, the District Commission was pleased to reject the complaint of the respondent on the ground that the policy was subject to specific terms and conditions and the respondent had failed to promptly report the theft of the vehicle to the police and there was a delay in reporting the theft to the insurance company. Therefore, there was a breach of crucial policy terms and conditions. It was held that delay in filing the FIR deprived the petitioner from opportunity to effectively search for the stolen vehicle.

2.2 Aggrieved, the respondent filed an Appeal No.378 of 2017 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“State Commission” for short]. By order dated 04.07.2022, the State Commission was pleased to allow the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.10,20,180/- towards the claim of the petitioner.

2.3 Aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed revision petition No.1352 of 2022 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“National Commission” for short]. The National Commission vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2024 has upheld the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition came to be dismissed.

Aggrieved, the petitioner insurance company filed the present Special Civil Application.

3. Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the findings arrived at by the District Commission ought to have been upheld by the State Commission as well as the National Commission. She submits that the respondent was not the actual owner of the vehicle and the policy was also taken in the name of the earlier owner and that he was only a Power of Attorney holder. She submits that the respondent did not inform the insurance company immediately as well as lodged the FIR with the police with delay in respect of the theft of the vehicle. She submits that such a delay is fatal and therefore, the petitioner insurance company had all rights to repudiate the claim as it was in breach of the conditions of the policy. Further, it was submitted that the vehicle was sold to the respondent and the vehicle was in possession of the Power of Attorney holder, however, the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the Power of Attorney holder/purchaser and the insurance policy was continued in the name of the earlier owner itself. She submits that the earlier owner did not have any interest in the vehicle after the sale. She further submits that it was wrongly concluded by the State Commission that the claim of the complainant was genuine and that the District Commission had not adjudicated the said issue as there was a breach of conditions of the policy. She further submits that the National Commission has also erred in holding that the delay in intimation to the insurance company as also purported transfer of the vehicle to the third party by entering in a sale agreement, is not an important factor for the insurer to deny the claim.

3.1 In support of her