Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/506

ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJAY SILAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 13.05.2022 passed in C.C.No.416/2019 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH LEGAL MANAGER,

FIFTH FLOOR, MAPLE HEIGHT STREET,

OPPOSITE ASHIMA MALL, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

AJAY SILAWAT,

S/O SHRI RADHELAL SILAWAT,

R/O 1, ABHISHEK NAGAR, NEMAWAR ROAD,

MOOSAKHEDI, INDORE (M.P.)

SECOND ADDRESS: 9/1, KALALI MOHALLA,

CHHAWANI, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                     ...   RESPONDENT.  

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :       ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY              :    MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 18.09.2024)

                        The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

                        This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-insurance company is directed against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.416/2019 whereby the complainant’s complaint has been allowed directing the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.46,571/- insured declared value of the vehicle with

-2-

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till payment within a period of two months failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a.. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- has also been awarded.

2.                In nutshell facts of the case are that the complainant’s Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no. MP-09 VA-8453 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for a period w.e.f. 08.05.2017 to 07.05.2018 for IDV Rs.46,571/-. The subject vehicle was stolen on 10.04.2018 when it was parked before complainant’s aunt’s shop opposite RTO of which report was lodged with the police and the insurance company was also informed.  He has submitted that after parking the motorcycle he went to RTO and when he came back he found that key was missing. He therefore went to his house and brought the duplicate key but when he reached at the spot where he parked the motorcycle he found that the motorcycle was missing. The aunt told him that the person who came with you took away the motorcycle. The claim along with requisite documents including Final Report filed with the insurance company was not paid which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore, filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging

 

1.  

deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company seeking relief of sum insured of vehicle with compensation.

3.                The opposite party/appellant opposed the complaint stating that intimation of theft occurred on 10.04.2018 of which FIR was lodged with the police on 24.07.2018 i.e. after 3 months and the insurance company was informed 13.05.2018 i.e. after one month whereas the immediate intimation to the insurance company was required to be given. The complainant had given an application to the Police Station Tejaji Nagar on 01.05.2018 that his tenant took away his motorcycle and his aunt also stated that the person came with him took away the motorcycle. Rest of the allegations were denied. Thus, there is violation of the policy terms and conditions and therefore the complainant’s claim is not payable. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company argued that as per condition of the policy the complainant/respondent should have informed the insurance company in writing immediately upon occurrence of any incident, loss or damage.  In the instant matter the respondent intimated the insurance company as also the police regarding incident of theft belated.  He argued that in the statement given to the Investigator, the complainant himself has stated

-4-

that he left the original key in ignition. He argued that the complainant left his vehicle unattended with key in ignition and did not take reasonable care to safe guard his vehicle which amounts to violation of policy condition no.4 and therefore the complainant’s claim is not payable. The District Commission has erred in wrongly presuming the intimation to the police in time which was not duly proved. From the FIR it is clear that the intimation was received by the police only on 24.07.2018. Hence, the complainant’s claim was not payable since there is violation of condition of the policy. He argued that the District Commission has erroneously allowed the complaint. He submits that impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the theft of vehicle occurred on 10.04.2018 and intimation to Police was given, immediately on 01.05.2018.  Thereafter, when the vehicle could not be traced the police registered FIR on 24.07.2018 and a claim was filed with the insurance company.   The insurance company was also immediately informed. The appellant-insurance company repudiated the respondent’s claim merely on the ground that the complainant did not take reasonable care to safeguard his vehicle. Learned counsel therefore argued that the impugned order is just and proper and is liable to be affirmed as the respondent deserves claim amount of his insured vehicle.

-5-

7.                On perusal of record, we find that the complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 10.04.2018 and it is stated by the complainant that on 01.05.2018 he informed the police in writing which is annexed as R-1.  When the vehicle could not be traced by the police, the police registered FIR on 24.07.2018 (R-3). It is also submitted by the complainant that the insurance company was immediately informed however, there is no such documentary evidence on record.  R-4 is statement dated 13.05.2018 of the complainant given to the Investigator that on 10.04.2018 he left the vehicle with original key in ignition and due to which the vehicle stolen.

8.                The complainant has stated that he informed the police on 01.05.2018 (R-1) i.e. after 20 days of theft of vehicle stating that his tenant took away his motorcycle. R-3 is FIR dated 24.07.2018 i.e. after 3 months of alleged theft. Thus, we find that the District Commission has erred in holding that the complainant informed the police immediately. From the FIR (R-3) it is clear that the FIR was lodged on 24.07.2018 whereas theft took place on 10.04.2018.

9.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr,I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) in concurrence with a view taken by it in Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance Company LimitedIV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC) has held that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the

-6-

policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2022) CPJ 119 (SC).

10.              In the present case, admittedly the FIR of theft which took place on 10.04.2018 was lodged with the police on 24.07.2018 i.e. after 3 months and the insurance company was informed on 13.05.2018 i.e. after one month thus there is clear violation of policy terms and conditions. Even by intimation dated 01.05.2018 (R-1) it is presumed that intimation was given to the police but that is too after 20 days. The complainant has also not given any valid reason for that delay.

11.              Though considering that the complainant left the key in ignition and did not take proper and reasonable care to safeguard his vehicle, he could have entitled to get the claim on non-standard basis but here in the

-7-

present case there is delayed intimation to the police as also to the insurance company. There is huge delay of 3 months in informing the police and one month in informing the insurance company which cannot be said to a valid reason or sufficient reason.

12.              This Commission in First Appeal No.1875/2012 (Ramprasad Patel Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited) decided on 05.04.2022 and Appeal No. 1851/2016 (Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sitaram Gurjar) decided on 18.05.2022 took a similar view following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh (supra) and Jaina Construction (supra). 

13.              In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of a considered view that the insurance company has not committed any error in repudiating the claim.

14.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error while allowing the complaint. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

15.              In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                              Member