Insurance companies must fulfill claims promptly upon verification of genuineness to prevent unnecessary delays and hardships.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18/12/2008 of the State Commission in appeal No. 1091 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 28/09/2006 of the District Commission in complaint No. 152 of 2006.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the two sides and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 28/09/2006 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18/12/2008 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. In the interest of justice, in order to provide fair opportunity to the Insurance Company (the revisionist herein), and to dispose of the revision after going into the merits (rather than to dismiss it on limitation), the delay of 34 days in filing the petition is condoned.

4. The dispute relates to repudiation of the insurance claim on the loss of the insured articles in a robbery (the claim was treated as "no claim").

5. It is admitted that the premium had been paid, the policy was valid, the first information report of the robbery was lodged with the police (and the police on investigating had not found it to be a case of false information).

6. The District Commission allowed the complaint, on contest, and, with reasons recorded, ordered the opposite party Insurance Company (the revisionist herein) to pay Rs.6.70 lakh to the complainant (the respondent herein) along with Rs.25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000 towards cost of litigation.

7. The Insurance Company appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission made its appraisal of the facts and evidence, and, giving reasons therefor, assessed the loss at Rs.6.52 lakh (rather than at Rs.6.70 lakh as assessed by the District Commission) and modified the award accordingly (it left the compensation of Rs.25,000 and the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000 unaltered).

8. Concurrent findings on all material aspects of the matter have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two Fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that we find the Orders to be well - appraised and well - reasoned. We do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. We also do not find any reason to make a fresh de novo re - appreciation of the evidence in revision. We find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

9. In so far as the award is concerned, we notice that the incident of robbery, i.e. the loss of the insured articles took place in 2003, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim in 2004, the consumer complaint was filed in 2006, the District Commission passed its Order in 2006, the State Commission passed its Order in 2008, the revision before this Commission was filed in 2009, we are now in 2022. It can also not be lost sight of that payment of interest on the awarded amount has not been factored in in the award. It bears emphasis that the Insurance Company was duty bound to make good the loss promptly and without unreasonable delay and also that the claim has been found to be genuine by both the fora below.

10. Learned Counsel for the complainant draws attention to this Commission's Order dated 20/10/2009 whereby the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount with the Distri