This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.WB06A3327(Scorpio LX) which was stolen on 26-10-2010 from complainant’s residence, Sarobar Apartment, 102, Southern Avenue, Kolkata – 700 029, along with original documents kept in the said car and the said car was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Kolkata and the value of the said card was Rs.9,95,251/-.  The details of the vehicle is manufactured on 2009, Chasis No.92A 12688, Engine No.BS94A30579, Insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Insurance Policy No.OG-10-241-1801-00041780 and insurance valid is put midnight 26^th March, 2011 it is further stated that complainant came to know from his security Shri Kartick Das that from the said residential apartment situated at Southern Avenue, Kolkata, which could not be found even after possible search made by the complainant to trace out the said vehicle.  So, complainant alleged a complaint of theft to O.C. Lake P.S. Kolkata – 700 068 and a case being Case No.269 dated 26-10-2010 u/s.379 I.P. Code was registered by the police.

          Thereafter, complainant relied upon the Investigation Cell of the police but in spite of passing of considerable time no hopeful result was secured by the police and the police failed to trace out the miscreants and also the vehicle and ultimately police authority filed FRT No.55 of 2011 to the Ld. CJM, Alipore.

          In the meantime, complainant visited the office of the OP to lodge claim but was advised by the concerned officer to wait till the police action is completed as there is a chance of recovery and the complainant waited for that and after failure of the police and after submission of the FRT complainant lodged insurance claim to the OP being No.4025 1959 dated 05-09-2011.  Thereafter, OP issued a letter dated 07-09-2011 requesting the complainant to fulfill some requirements which is duly complied with the complainant within the stipulated time but OP made no whisper about the said claim of the complainant and being shocked and surprised complainant received a letter on 08-09-2011 from the OP that there was 310 days delay in filing the claim petition to the insurance company so for violation of the policy’s terms and condition his claim is repudiated.

          Complainant has alleged that OP most arbitrarily rejected the claim though explanation was made by the complainant and delay was not at all delay because it is the provision to file such claim after submission of police report and that was done.  So, the entire repudiation is illegal and fact remains there is no chance of recovery of the vehicle so, in the circumstances, complainant has prayed for release of the claim amount of Rs.7,71,523/- as per sum insured and also for compensation.

          On the contrary, Insurance Company by filing written version submitted that complainant knowing fully well of the terms and condition of the policy within 24 hours from the time of theft did not report about the incident of theft of the vehicle but it was reported after lapse of 310 days and that delay was not properly explained and practically complainant has violated the terms and condition of the policy and for which the said claim was rejected and further submitted that the vehicle was not lost and no officer asked the complainant to wait till submission of the final report and that story was prepared only for the purpose of this case and the story of illness of the complainant for considerable period is also totally false and afterthought and there was no deficiency on the part of the OP so as per the terms and condition of the policy that was rightly repudiated and there was no fault on the part of the OP for which OP has prayed for dismissal of this case. 

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration  of the entire allegation of the complainant and also the fact including the deficiency on the part of the OP it is clear that present vehicle bearing No.WB06A3327(Scorpio LX) was insured under the present insurance company vide insurance policy No.OG-10-2401-1801-00041780 and it was valid up to 26-03-2011 and sum insured of Rs.6,64,049/-.

          It is also undisputed fact that the vehicle was stolen with original documents etc. in between 23 hours of 25-10-2010 to 7-45 hours of 216-10-2010 and it is also undisputed fact that Lake P.S. started P.S. Case No.269 of 26-10-2010 and it was forwarded to CJM, Alipore and further fact is that ultimately FRT was submitted by the police on 02-08-2011 before the Ld. CJM and Ld. CJM accepted the report because police failed to search out the vehicle so considering the FIR and the complaint of the complainant before the police station including the FRT submitted to the Ld. CJM it is clear that vehicle was stolen and that was committed no doubt in between the night hours of 25-10-2010 to morning hours of 26-10-2010 and from police report it is proved that said vehicle has not been searched out by the police even after thorough investigation from 26-10-2010 to 02-08-2010.  That means for about 310 days investigation was continued but ultimately, police failed and submitted FRT on 02-08-2011 and that has not been challenged by the OP regarding theft of the vehicle and so there is no dispute about theft of vehicle.

          But after considering the argument of the Ld. Lawyer of the OP and also the written version it is found that the OP insurance company is strict with their decision that repudiation was correct in view of the fact as per terms and condition of the policy theft information was not reported to the Insurance Company forthwith from the date of commission of theft on 26-10-2010 and claim was made on 05-09-2011 i.e. long after 310 days from the date of commission of the violation i.e. theft of vehicle and complainant has failed to give any explanation of the same for which the same was repudiated.  So, in this case main question is whether the delay was caused by the complainant for his own fault or there is sufficient ground for such delay.

          In this regard, we are sure that no claim application shall be decided by any insurance company in respect of theft of vehicle unless and until charge-sheet or FRT submitted by the police is filed and that is the theory of the insurance company to entertain any claim application and fact remains insurance company has not stated that insurance company can dispose of his said complaint not even accepting any FRT.  Then, question is what is the necessity to file the claim application before sub mission of the FRT or charge-sheet of the FRT before Ld. CJM and in this case fact remains that this complaint is a very genuine complaint because insurance company knows this person is a very bona fide people and fact remains that he went to the insurance company but insurance company’s men version is that ‘you must have to file claim application after final report of the police’ and in this case complainant waited up to that thereafter he filed this claim application on 05-09-2011 and final report was accepted by the Ld. CJM on 28-08-2011.  So, it is clear that complainant submitted the claim application rightly as per the norms of the insurance policy after acceptance of FRT by Ld. CJM, Alipore.  Though it is clear that the complainant submitted the complaint before right authority to police on 26-10-2010 in that case there was no delay in reporting the matter and police investigated the same for more than 11 months.  Thereafter, submitted FRT and that FRT esd accepted on 28-08-2011 and in between that period there was no ground to file any claim application.  About information in writing nothing was informed to the OP as alleged is completely false in view of the facts complainant reported about the theft what has been committed that has been reported to the police authority when the OPs authority reported the claim shall be failed after the charge-sheet and that is the norms and the complainant a simple gentleman waited as per the instruction of the OPs office and submitted claim along with valid documents with such truthful reports that police failed to search out vehicle and it was impossible for them to search out the miscreants then regarding theft of the vehicle OP has nothing to say regarding police investigation and submission of FRT OP has nothing to say but their only grievance is that the claim application has been filed on 05-09-2011 whereas the incident took place on 26-10-2010.  It is the common practice of the insurance company to deny the legitimate claim of the vehicle owners whose vehicle is stolen on such technical ground but in this case the delay as pointed out by the OP is not a delay because theft was committed on 26-10-2010 and FRT was submitted on 02-08-2011 and Ld. CJM accepted it on 28-08-2011 and, thereafter, claim application was filed on 05-09-2011 and it was submitted as per procedure of the Insurance Company that after submission of the charge-sheet/FRT claim application shall be submitted.  So, in our view there was no delay but as because Bajaj Allianz, HDFC, SBI Life Insurance and other Pvt. Insurance Companies are not in a mood to give relief to the insured but in a mood to collect premium but at the time of settlement of claim they shall have to search out a technical point by which they refuse the claim and that has been adopted in this case.

          But anyhow in this regard in support of their repudiation OP referred judgment of RP No.4762 of 2012 of Haryana Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in case of Surendar Singh and Kishan Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Ajadpur Branch and submitted that as per terms and condition of the policy it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate about the theft of the OP immediately and as because complainant has not followed it so, it was rightly repudiated and the above ruling supports their such view and they also referred another ruling of National Commission in RP No.2951 of 2011 in case of Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company.  But considering the entire fact and circumstances we have gathered that it is undisputed fact that theft was committed and when theft has been committed and it is a truth then there is no ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant but in view of the ruling reported in (2008) II Supreme Court Cases 259 we find that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of vehicle cannot be looked into and insurance company cannot repudiate the claim if we consider this spirit of the judgment then it is clear that in that case claim of the insured was repudiated on the ground terms and condition of the policy was violated.  In the present case also OP has placed before us the above two ruling and submitted that they have violated the terms and condition of the policy.  But truth is that theft was reported to police and complainant went to the OP’s office and reported that the matter shall be submitted after submission of the charge-sheet or FRT and complainant a general public having status in the society relied upon that instruction of the insurance company and waited till submission of the FRT and charge-sheet and, thereafter, submitted it.  So, we find that practically complainant was misguided by the staff of the OP’s office and for which he cannot be deprived from getting his relief.

          Further we relied upon the spirit of the judgment wherefrom we find that this technical theorizations cannot be taken into account by the OP on the ground that police is the only authority to investigate the case but not the insurance company.  Insurance company is bound to rely upon the police report about the claim of the complainant.  Then why the OP shall not rely upon the FRT and for the sake of argument it is accepted that the complainant was misguided and failed to submit simple paper of information then for that only his entire claim shall be repudiated cannot be taken into account as a social approach.  Further we relied upon the said Supreme Court Judgment and spirit and we have gathered that when complainant complied all the requirement, for some technicalities if it is repudiated, it is completely uncalled for and after relying upon the said ruling we have gathered that if any technicality is there in that case that shall be overlooked and non-standard basis principle may be applied and when theft is committed some relief should be given and practically, the approach of the Supreme Court is not properly assessed by different Forum properly but our renowned Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer expressed his opinion about the insurance claim in so many judgment where Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer expressed that insurance is a social legislation so the interpretation shall be also with social approach and no doubt following that authority Hon’ble Supreme Court passed judgment which was reported in (2008) II Supreme Court Case 259 and Hon’ble Supreme Court granted claim by applying non-standard basis principle and overlooked the violation of the terms and conditions when it is a case of theft and we have also relied upon the said ruling including the present facts and circumstances and we find that truth is that on the very day the vehicle was stolen from the house compound of the complainant.  Investigation was continued by the Lake P.s. from, 26-10-2010 to 02-08-2011 but they failed to search out the vehicle and also miscreants so FRT was submitted.  Thereafter, Ld. CJM, Alipore accepted the said FRT on 28-08-2011 and after that complainant reported the matter along with all police papers on 05-09-2011.  So, in our view the claim was submitted on 05-09-2011 after filing of the FRT by the police and fact remains if complainant would file the claim application on 26-10-2010 in that case also insurance company shall not have to dispose of the same till receipt of the final report or charge-sheet then what is harm if it is file after filed after submission of charge-sheet.  No doubt we have gathered that for the sake of the argument it is accepted that it is submitted after submission of charge-sheet then at best principle of non-standard basis can be completed in this case for proper justice when huge amount was paid by the complainant as premium and complainant has not tried to cheat the company when the truth is that his vehicle was stolen and in the above circumstances and considering the entire materials on record we find that a spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fully applicable in this case and complainant is entitled to non-standard basis compensation i.e. 75% of the total sum assured of Rs.6,64,049/- and 6% interest over the said amount.

          Accordingly, we are very much relying upon the spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court allowing relief to that extent.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) against the OP.

          OP is directed to pay non-standard basis of compensation for theft of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.4,98,036/-(Rupees Four lakh ninety eight thousand thirty six only) and also 6% interest over the same since 05-09-2011 and interest shall be paid since 05-09-2011 and till full payment of the entire amount by the OP to the complainant.

          Accordingly, after payment of the said amount including the interest and also the cost of the case the entire claim matter of the complainant shall be treated as final settlement treating the repudiation is uncalled for.

          OP is directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of this order failing which for delay and for violating the Forum’s order punitive damages @300/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even then OP is found reluctant to obey the order of the Forum in that case penal action against the OP will be started and for which the penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be assessed for which OP shall be liable.