AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member
Aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow, in Review Petition No. 81 of 2021 dated 30.3.2022 dismissing the Review Petition filed against the Final Order dated 23.3.2021 of the State Commission dismissing the Appeal No. 196 of 2021 as being time barred, which was filed against the Order dated 16.2.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 303 of 2013 by the District Consumer Forum, Mathura, dismissing the Complaint, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition under Section 58 (1) (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant got financed an Ashok Leyland Truck No. R.J.-05-GA-8017 from Allahabad Bank, Mathura and got it insured with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company under Policy No. 32290331110100001019 for the period w.e.f. 07.10.2011 to 06.10.2012. The Truck was stolen on 20.09.2012 in the night. The Complainant has averred that he went to the Police Station but his report of theft was not written and on 21.09.2012 he informed the Manager of the Insurance Company, Agra about the theft. On 3.10.2012 he wrote to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Mathura for registering his F.I.R. and informed the Insurance Company about the application for registration of F.I.R. On 12.10.2012, he received a letter from the Manager, (Agra) of the Insurance Company raising certain queries. On 18.10.2012, he filed his complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for registration of the F.I.R. On the order of the Court, the F.I.R. was registered on 24.10.2012. The Complainant then sent a Legal Notice to the Insurance Company for realization of the Insurance amount. The Investigating Officer of the Police submitted his Final Report on 24.11.2012 before the ACJM, Court, Mathura, which is Annexure-9 of the Paper Book and which was accepted vide order dated 6.7.2013. The Opposite Party/Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 25.07.2013. The Complainant approached the District Forum, Mathura, by filing his complaint for recovery of the Insurance amount, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the Complainant then filed his Appeal before the State Commission, U.P. which was also dismissed, being time barred. The Complainant thereafter filed a Review Petition before the State Commission, U.P. The Review Petition was also dismissed being not maintainable. Hence, this Revision Petition.
Heard. Perused the material available on record.
Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant has argued that no delay was caused by the Appellant/Complainant in filing of the Appeal before the State Commission. He was diligently pursuing his case and there was no lapse on his part but the delay had occurred only due to the Advocate he had appointed, who cheated him. He further argued that the Order passed by the State Commission is erroneous and bad in law. He has therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order passed in the Review Petition No. 81/2021.
Undoubtedly, the Petitioner/Complainant is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and the Insurance Policy was valid from 07.10.2011 to 06.10.2012. The vehicle was stolen on 20.09.2012. FIR was registered on 24.10.2012. The Insurance Company was informed on 08.10.2012 after lapse of validity of Insurance. Evidently, this delay of about 18 days has not been properly explained by the Complainant and is the violation of one of the conditions of the Insurance Policy.
On account of the delay in intimation, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company.
The learned District Forum had dismissed the Complaint by holding that the Complainant had violated the terms of the Policy since he had delayed informing the Insurance Company by as many as 18 days, and that too after the Policy had already lapsed on 6.10.2012. Also there was an inordinate delay of more than one month in lodging of the FIR. The case of the Petitioner/Complainant was that there was no willful delay on his part since the local Police Station declined to record the FIR, on account of which he was constrained to first approach the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, and when nothing fruitful came from the same, he filed the application u/s156(3) of the Cr.PC only after which the FIR was registered. However, no copy of application sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police was produced before the learned District Forum.
It has now been settled by Honble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 612, that mere delay in informing the Insurance Company is not sufficient ground for rejecting the Insurance Claim if there is no delay in reporting about the theft to the Police Authorities. The Complainant/Petitioner had however, been unable to show any document about his having approached either the local Police Station or the SSP, before filing his complaint u/s156 (3) Cr.PC in the Court.
The Ld. State Commission however, dismissed his Appeal on the ground that it was badly barred by limitation. It transpires that the Order of the District Forum dismissing the Petitioners complaint was passed on 16.2.2017. The Appeal was filed by the Petitioner against such Order more than four years later on 17.3.2021.
The State Commission after having gone through the grounds raised by the Petitioner was not satisfied, nor found the same to be believable, he had stated that after receiving copy of the Order of District Forum he had gone to Lucknow and entrusted the matter to some local Advocate who assured him that he would do the needful and he was thereafter informed on telephone that the Appeal had been filed and long dates were being given because of Covid-19 Pandemic. His Advocate reportedly died in November 2019. He subsequently came to the State Commission on 23.2.2021 and met another Advocate Shri S.P. Tripathi and learnt that no Appeal was pending in his name. Significantly the deceased Advocate, who purportedly informed him that his Appeal had been filed, was not revealed. Even otherwise, the said Advocate according to the Petitioner himself had died in November 2019, and so his contention that he was informed that long dates were being given on account of Covid-19 Pandemic would appear to be ex facie untenable since due to the Pandemic by way of lock down etc. had started only in the end of March 2020, whereas the concerned Advocate of the Petitioner had already died many months prior to that in November 2019.
In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the opinion that the view of the Ld. State Commission that the justification raised by the Petitioner in explaining the delay existing four years in filing of his Appeal is not satisfactory or believable. This Commission therefore, finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.