This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., against the order dated 06.02.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.1013/2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant had taken insurance policy on 11.04.2012 from the petitioner Insurance Company for Dumper bearing No.HR63B 1252 with an IDV of Rs.18,00,000/-.  The vehicle was stolen from a non operational construction site on 24.10.2012.  The notice was given to the Insurance Company on 25.10.2012 and an FIR was also lodged on 27.10.2012.  The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator, who submitted his report in July, 2013.  On the basis of the investigation report, the claim was repudiated on 12.09.2013.  The complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.253 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the basis of the report of the Investigator that:-

“(1)  the security systems of the vehicle were compromised & the vehicle could be started without a key;

(2)   the vehicle had been left at a construction site for atleast three days by the driver of respondent No.1, also by the name of Ajit Singh;

(3)   that there was a delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR, thus contravening both the contract of insurance as well as Judicial Precedent;”

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 26.08.2014 allowed the complaint and directed respondent No.1 to pay Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of alleged theft i.e. 24.10.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant and an amount of Rs.5,500/- of litigation cost was also ordered. 

4.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party, Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing No.FA No.1013 of 2014 before the State Commission and the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2017 of the State Commission. 

5.      Hence, the present revision petition.

6.      The respondent No.1/complainant did not appear despite service. Even on the date of hearing i.e. 07.08.2018 none was present on behalf of the respondents.  Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Insurance Company was heard.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant had four trucks and therefore, it cannot be said that he was using the dumper in question for his livelihood and therefore, the complainant was not a consumer.  However, both the fora below have not considered this issue.  It was further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigator’s report clearly establishes that security system of the vehicle was not in order and the complainant himself has admitted the same in his statement before the Investigator.  The learned counsel further argued that the statement given before the Investigator clearly shows that the lock system of the door was not working properly and the door could be opened without key. It was further argued that the vehicle was kept in a non-construction site without any watch and ward.  It clearly shows that the complainant had not taken due care and precaution for safeguarding  the vehicle.  This is a violation of Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy.  The learned counsel further added that in the cases of theft, the insured has to immediately give intimation to the Police and the Insurance Company and in this matter the Police was not immediately informed and the FIR was lodged after three days.  The material time was lost when the vehicle could have been traced by the Police.  The complainant has not shown any reasoning for delay in filing the FIR.  Thus, Condition No.1 of the policy has also been violated.  

8.      The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that complainant has violated two very important conditions of the policy and therefore, the contract of the policy had been completely breached and insurance claim cannot be allowed.  Both the fora below erred in allowing the insurance claim to the complainant and therefore, the orders of the fora below are required to be set aside.  Learned counsel further informed that the total amount was deposited before the District Forum and the same has also been released by the District Forum to the complainant and that is why the respondent No1/complainant is not appearing before this Commission despite notice. 

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company and have examined the material on record.  Clearly no intimation has been given to the Police immediately, however, the FIR has been lodged after a period of three days.  Clearly this time was enough for culprits to take away the vehicle beyond the jurisdiction of the local Police and then to dismantle the same.  Thus, there has been a clear violation of Condition No.1 of the policy as the Police was not immediately informed of the theft.  The State Commission has tried to overlook this delay by relying on a circular from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), wherein the insurance companies have been advised not to reject the genuine claim filed with delay.  This advisory from IRDA is in respect of the delay in intimation being given to the Insurance Company. This does not absolve the insured for delay in intimating the Police in case of theft.  Hence, clearly Condition No.1 has been breached.  The State Commission has itself observed that the truck was parked at a tubewell and not at any public place. If cabin lock was not working, it does not mean that this fact helped the theft of the vehicle. This observation of the State Commission cannot be sustained because if the cabin lock was not working properly, obviously, a thief will find it easier to take away the vehicle.  Hence it is clear that Condition No.5 of the policy was also violated. 

10.    First of all, argument of the petitioner that the complainant was not a consumer is devoid of merits as insurance is covered under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as per the judgment in  Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC)], all the cases relating to vehicle insurance are being dealt  by this Commission.

11.    On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that there has been violation of Condition No.1 and Conditions No.5 of the Insurance Policy by the complainant.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), held that if some conditions of the policy are not met, the insurance claim can be settled upto 75% of the claim.

12.    Based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), I deem it appropriate to allow the insurance claim upto 60% of the total IDV instead of total IDV as allowed by the fora below.  Thus the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.10,80,000/- (rupees ten lakh eighty thousand only) along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till actual payment.  Accordingly, the orders of the fora below stand modified. The order of grant of cost of litigation of Rs.5,500/- is maintained. Revision Petition No.1828 of 2017 is accordingly disposed of.  No order as to costs for this revision petition.