STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/21/32 SACHCHELAL GUPTA PRESENT ADDRESS - GRAM BADI HARDI, THANA BAIKUNTHPUR, DIST. REWA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus UNITED INDIA INSU.CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - BR. REWA, TANSEN COMPLEX, SIRMOUR CHOWK, REWA. DIST.

REWA. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SACHCHELAL GUPTA FOR THE RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSU.CO.LTD.

DATED: 02/04/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2021 (Arising out of order dated 27.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.69/2018 by District Commission, Rewa)

SACHHELAL GUPTA, S/O SHRI RAMADHAR GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE-BADI HARDI, POLICE STATION-BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.) … PETITIONER Versus BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH-REWA, TANSEN COMPLEX, SIRMOUR CHOWK, REWA (M.P.) … RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES Shri Praveen Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER (Passed On 02.04.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.69/2018 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant's shop was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 14.10.2014 to

13.10.2015. During the insurance cover, on 28.09.2015 theft -2-

took place in his shop of which FIR was lodged with the police and insurance company was also informed. The claim filed with the insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party-insurance company denying the allegations made in the complaint has submitted that the theft took place on 28.09.2015 of which FIR was lodged after 6 days i.e. on 04.10.2015 and the insurance company was informed on 07.10.2015. Because of delayed intimation, investigation was not carried out. Surveyor appointed in the matter also found that incident of theft is false. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents filed by the complainant. It is further argued that on the basis of the report of the surveyor it is proved that incident of theft occurred, therefore, repudiation of claim by the opposite party/respondent-insurance company is wrong.

Thus, the impugned order be set-aside and appropriate relief be granted as prayed by him in the complaint.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent- insurance company argued that the impugned order is based on documents and evidence on record. It is further argued that the District Commission after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly dismissed the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and therefore this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. As per the case of the complainant incident of theft occurred in the night of 28.09.2015, however, FIR was not lodged immediately after alleged incident. Record indicates that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 6 days i.e. on 04.10.2015. Record further indicates that there is a delay of 10 days in providing information to the respondent-insurance company about the theft. The complainant has informed the insurance