Uncontested facts can't be disputed in appeal

The State Commission noted that the supporting documents had not been disputed as being false, and so the surveyor had erred in questioning the theft

Babaji Vitthal Tube had purchased a truck, which was financed by a loan from the State Bank of Patiala. The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance under a policy valid from February 14, 2009 till February 13, 2010, and for which a premium of Rs 17,299 had been paid.

On November 15, 2009, Abdul Rashid, who had been engaged to drive the vehicle, parked the truck and handed over the keys to Tube’s son, and also intimated the father who owned the vehicle. On November 17, 2009, Rashid found the truck missing. Upon making inquiries, Tube and Rashid concluded that the truck had been stolen. So, they approached the Kalamboli Police Station, which made inquiries and later registered the offence under FIR no. 512/2009 dated November 27, 2009.

Tube also lodged a claim with the insurer. After more than a month, the insurer sought additional information, which was also furnished. However, the claim was repudiated, so Tube filed a complaint before the Raigad District Consumer Commission.

The insurer did not bother to respond to the notice issued by the District Commission. The case was decided ex parte, and United India was ordered to pay the claim amount of Rs 15 lakh and additionally Rs 20,000 towards compensation.

United India appealed against the order. It contended that Tube owned three trucks and could not be termed a consumer. It also argued that the claim was not payable as neither the intimation of the theft had been promptly communicated nor had the FIR been lodged immediately with the police. The insurer relied on the opinion of the surveyor and investigator who had raised doubts about the theft.

The Maharashtra State Commission considered the documents on record, which established that the police complaint, as well as the intimation of theft, had been lodged within two days. The police had conducted a preliminary investigation and then registered the FIR a week later after being satisfied about the theft. The State Commission observed that since United India had not contested the complaint before the District Commission, it had lost its right to contest the factual aspects of the case. The Commission also questioned how the surveyor and investigator could doubt the theft without having confirmed the fact with the Kalamboli Police.

The State Commission also expressed surprise and questioned the logic behind asking Tube to produce additional information after the final report had been submitted by the surveyor, and it had been decided to repudiate the claim.

The Commission pointed out that the documents lodged in support of the claim were not disputed as being false, and so it was not correct on the part of the surveyor to question the incident of theft or allege the claim to be false.

The State Commission dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit and held that the insurer had been rightly held liable for its failure to settle the claim in a reasonable time. Accordingly, by its order of March 21, 2023, delivered by Justice S P Tavade presiding over the Bench along with judicial member S T Barne, the appeal filed by United India Insurance was dismissed, and the order passed in Tube’s favour was upheld.
 

The writer is a consumer activist