ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

1.     This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act 1986’), challenging the Order dated 26.04.2012 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 221 of 2011, arising out of the Order dated 29.11.2010 in C.C. No. 82 of 2010 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (‘District Forum’).

The Petitioner, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.

The Respondent, Mr. Partha Sarathi Banerjee, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

2.     Heard arguments from learned Counsel for both sides.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 29.11.2010 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 26.04.2012 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3.     The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim regarding the theft of an insured vehicle.

The incident of theft occurred in 2009, the claim was repudiated in 2009, litigation before the District Forum commenced in 2010, we are now in 2020.

4.     Salient material facts, admitted to by both sides, are that the premium was paid, the insurance policy was valid, an F.I.R. regarding the theft of the subject vehicle was lodged with the Police, the Police investigated the offence and filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. before the competent court to close the investigation (vehicle untraced).

5.     The District Forum, vide its Order dated 29.11.2010, allowed the Complaint. The Order was passed on contest, after the affording of opportunity to (inter alia) the Insurance Co. (also).

The Insurance Co. was ordered to pay the IDV of the subject vehicle, with interest @10% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, within thirty days, failing which interest @12% per annum will be applicable; it was also ordered to pay cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.

6.     The Insurance Co. filed Appeal before the State Commission; the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. 

7.     The State Commission has passed a speaking Order.

The crux of the case has been succinctly reasoned by the State Commission in the penultimate paragraph of its Order of 26.04.2012 (“We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the actual state of affairs and the cases of the respective parties and the legal propositions involved and accordingly has arrived at a just and proper decision.  When admittedly there is no dispute as to the theft of the vehicle in question by some unknown miscreants, we do not find any illegality in the finding of the Ld. District Forum allowing rightly the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant. In this regard, we also find much substance in the submissions so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, who whil