ORDER
(Passed this on 31st March, 2017)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This complaint against the Opposite Party, Shriram General Insurance Company, is about non settlement of insurance claim of stolen vehicle.
02. A truck bearing No. MH-31-CQ-3429 owned by the complainant was insured with the O.P. for IDV Rs. 6,50,000/- for the period from 7 /2/ 2011 to 6 /2/ 2012. In the night of 5/12/2011 the said truck was parked duly lockd in the parking area of Coal Mines, Umred and was found to be stolen on next morning. A police report was lodged with P.S. Umred on 6/12/2011, but no immediate cognizance was taken by police. The O.P. was also intimated on the same day. Ultimately after several efforts FIR was registered on 17/4/2012. The O.P. deputed its investigator, who conducted
inspection. The complainant then submitted the claim form with necessary papers to the O.P. On 21/6/2012 the O.P. informed the complainant of repudiation of his claim on the ground of delay in intimating the incident to police, amounting to breach of policy condition. Alleging the repudiation to be illegal and amounting to deficiency in service, he has prayed to direct the O.P. to pay him IDV of the stolen truck with 14.5% interest along with compensation and litigation cost.
03. The O.P. filed its written statement and denied the complaint and claim. Alleging suppression of material facts, it is stated that the complainant did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the truck from loss. Secondly, it is alleged the intimation of theft was not given to police immediately. This is breach of policy conditions and therefore the claim was rightly repudiated. Therefore the complaint is said to be not maintainable for, there is no deficiency in service. Denying the averments that the truck was duly locked and was stolen and report was given to police next day, but no cognizance was taken, it is submitted that the complaint being false, it be dismissed.
04. Heard Ld counsels for both the sides. Perused documents and notes of arguments. After considering the same, we record our findings and reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. A perusal of repudiation letter dated 21/6/2012 reveals the claim was basically repudiated for belated intimation to police. Ld counsel for the O.P. submitted that there was no delay to intimate the O.P., but police were belatedly intimated and therefore the claim was repudiated. We make it clear that there is no reference in the repudiation letter of breach of other condition i.e. failure to take steps to safeguard the truck from loss. It is for the first time alleged in the W.S. Therefore we need not consider that aspect which was not the ground of repudiation.
06. Since claim was repudiated, burden is on the O.P. to prove there was delay in intimation. Ld counsel for the O.P. , for that purpose, referred to the FIR wherein it is mentioned that the report of the incident was received at the Police Station on 17/4/2012 and on that date crime was registered. No doubt, this appears to be the fact from the FIR and this is the only document in support of the O.Ps. contention
regarding delay. Ld counsel for the complainant then invited our attention to the document No.5, copy of report given to P.S. Umred by the complainant. It reveals the report of theft was given on 6/12/2011 i.e. next day of the incident. The report bears acknowledgement of receipt with seal, that it was received by police on 6/12/2011. This fact is also mentioned in the FIR. So this is ample proof of immediate intimation of theft to police.
07. A question arises why FIR was registered so late if report was promptly lodged. Answer to this can be found in the FIR itself. In the column ¨Reasons for delay in reporting..¨ it is mentioned that FIR was registered immediately after order from Magistrate, Umred. It is to be mentioned that when the police did not register FIR though report was given, the complainant had approached the Judicial Magistrate F.C at Umred u/s 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction to police to register the crime and investigate. Copy of that application is placed on record in which failure of police to register the crime despite lodging of report is clearly alleged. It was on the direction of the Magistrate to register the FIR, police registered it, but by that time much time was lost. But for the delay the complainant cannot be held responsible in any way. He did his duty promptly as per policy condition and therefore no breach of condition No.1 of the policy can be attributed to him.
08. The O.P. by merely relying on the date of registration of FIR committed grave error in repudiation of the claim. It should have considered the reason for delay. There is no other reason for repudiation. From the letter of the investigator dated 7/12/2011 to the complainant asking him to provide some papers, it is apparent that intimation to the OP also must have been given on 6/12/2011. Besides, it is not alleged that there was delay in giving intimation to the O.P.
09. The IDV of the truck was Rs.6,50,000/-. This value is taken for the policy period. Nothing has been submitted regarding depreciation and so we do not consider any depreciation while allowing the claim. In the result, we pass following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed.
- The Opposite Party, Shriram General Insurance Company, is directed to pay IDV Rs. 6,50,000/-(In words Rupees Six Lac & Fifty Thousand only) of the stolen truck to the complainant with 6% p.a. interest from the date of incident.
- The O.P. shall also pay compensation Rs.10,000/- (In words Rupees Ten Thousand only) for mental and physical agony, and litigation cost Rs.3000/- (In words Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant.
- The order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within 30 days from receipt of the order.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.