Ajay Kumar Guar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ajay Kumar Gaur against the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand (in short 'the State Commission') in F.A. No.97 of 2014.

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant took insurance policy of his Truck Tata Model LP.T. 2518 from OP/respondent for the period from 25.9.2011 to 24.9.2012. On 8.1.2012 some stranger gave Prasad to him and cleaner and after some time when he became unconscious he was overpowered and when he woke up he was in Naziabad and his truck and Rs.26,000/- was stolen. The complainant lodged an FIR with Police Station, Kotwali, Manglore. The insurance company did not settle the claim. Being aggrieved, complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. Vide order dated 24.5.2014, District Forum dismissed the complaint. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was dismissed by the State Commission.

Hence, the revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has wrongly recorded that intimation to the insurance company was given after one year and five months. The fact is that insurance company has filed claim form submitted by the petitioner on 25.1.2012 alongwith written statement. When the claim form is dated 25.1.2012 and the incident happened on 8.1.2012 clearly the observation of the State Commission is apparently wrong that there is a delay of one year and five months in intimating to the insurance company. The State Commission has not considered this document. Learned counsel further mentioned that FIR was not lodged immediately by the police and with the help of Superintendent of Police FIR was lodged on 24.1.2012. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR was due to the circumstances and due to attitude of the Police and it was not due to any fault on the part of the complainant. Similarly, the delay in intimating to the insurance company is only 17 days and that delay was unintentional and the same should have been ignored by the State Commission.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.

The insurance company in its written statement has clearly stated that the complainant first time intimated to the insurance company vide letter dated 27.6.2013 for the alleged loss on 8.1.2012. Written statement does not mention anything about alleged intimation dated 25.1.2012 as stated by learned counsel for the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant also does not refer to any intimation sent by the complainant on 25.1.2012 to the insurance company. Even in the appeal filed by the complainant there is no mention of this intimation given to the insurance company vide claim dated 25.1.2012. Learned counsel was asked during hearing whether there was any correspondence with the insurance company from 25.1.2012 till 27.6.2013. The learned counsel could not point out to any of the documents or could not confirm that there was any correspondence by the complainant with the insurance company during this period about this claim dated 25.1.2012 and there was no acceptance from the insurance company. Had this been a correct intimation letter and the same was not accepted by the District Forum, the complainant should have alleged this in the appeal. However, the same is not found to have been mentioned in the memo of appeal.

Thus, a fact that is not mentioned either in the complaint or in the memo of appeal, cannot be accepted at the stage of the revision petition, particularly in the situation when the OP has categorically denied the same and had positively averred that the intimation was given vide letter dated 27.6.2013 supported by the same finding by the State Commission. In such situation, the alleged intimation dated 25.1.2012 cannot be relied upon. In case of theft, the intimation to the police is very vital as the police can recover the vehicle in time. In the present case, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of 16 days and it was not possible for the police to trace the vehicle as there was enough time to take the vehicle to some far off place or even to dismantle the same. Though the State Commission has clearly found that it was a delay of about one year and five months in intimating to the insurance company and the same was mentioned in the written statement of the OP. On the basis of above examination, the alleged claim dated 25.1.2012 has not been found to be correct and cannot be relied upon. Even if the alleged claim is taken to be correct, the delay in intimation to the insurance company is also of 17 days and no explanation has been given for this delay. Thus, there is a delay in intimating to the police as well as to the insurance company. Moreover, it is seen that the State Commission has also observed that "the final report dated 11.2.2012 mentioned therein that the complainant Sh. Ajay got a false complaint lodged with a view to attaining undue profit from insurer and recommended initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182 of IPC.".

Based on the above, the State Commission after examining in detail found that the incident of theft was falsely reported by the complainant to get the insurance claim unauthorisedly. Even the police has also recommended institution of criminal case against the petitioner. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.3348 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.