ORDER

1.      The present Revision Petitions are filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 572/2018 and 580/2018, wherein the Appeal filed by the Respondents/ OPs being FA/572/2018 was allowed and the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant being FA/580/2018 was dismissed and the Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dausa (“District Forum”) in CC No. 92/2018 which allowed the said Complaint was set aside.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Mahindra tractor 275 DI Registration No.RJ-29RA 7410 for agricultural and personal use, insured by the Respondents from 08.02.2003 to 07.02.2004, with a sum insured of Rs.4,86,000/. On 04.12.2013, he took the tractor to his friend's farm in Prahladpura for agricultural work. After completing the work, he stayed overnight and parked the tractor in the field. The next morning, the tractor was found missing, presumed stolen. The Petitioner and his friend searched for the tractor but could not find it. He attempted to file an FIR at Police Station Lalsot, but the police did not lodge the FIR. Subsequently, on 07.12.2013, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the ACJM, Lalsot, who directed police to lodge the FIR on 11.12.2013.  The Petitioner informed the Respondents of the incident on the same day and submitted the claim along with required documents. However, the Respondents neither paid the insured amount nor rendered any satisfactory response. On 05.03.2018, he filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/92/2018 before the District Forum Dausa, Rajasthan, seeking payment of Rs.5,11,555/- along with interest @ 18% from 05.12.2013, Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, and Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

4.      In reply before the District Forum, the OPs contended that the Petitioner failed to inform them immediately about the theft as required under the policy terms, constituting a breach of policy conditions.  The FIR was lodged on 16.12.2013 whereas the tractor was stolen on 04.12.2013, after an unreasonable delay, prejudicing their ability to investigate the claim, as the stolen vehicle could have been taken far or dismantled. The OPs also questioned the circumstances of the theft, implying that the Petitioner did not take adequate precautions to secure the tractor. They denied any deficiency in service, claiming that the complaint is premature since the Petitioner failed to provide necessary documents and information to process the claim. The OPs highlighted that the tractor was hypothecated to ICICI Bank Ltd., which was not made a party to the complaint, making the complaint liable for dismissal. The Respondents also pointed out discrepancies in the Petitioner's submissions and argued that the tractor was used for purposes other than personal agricultural use, breaching policy conditions.       They sought to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.      The learned District Forum, vide Order dated 09.07.2018 allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents as under:-

“ORDER

11.      Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant Kaluram Meena against the respondent insurance company under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, is allowed and ordered the respondent insurance company to pay the insured amount of the vehicle amounting to Rs.4,84,000/- to the complainant. The said amount will be paid to the complainant only after providing letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and power of attorney to the respondent insurance company.

  The respondent insurance company, will make the payment of the said amount of Rs.4,84,000/- @ 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 28.02.2018 and Rs.10,000/- for t