1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 13.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 483 of 2016 in which order dated 05.05.2016 of Faridabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 577 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 13.09.2017 of the State Commission

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum, the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant ) was Appellant  before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 23.04.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 21.08.2023 ( Petitioner ) and 22.09.2023 ( respondent) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District  Forum and other case records are that Complainant is the registered owner of Truck and got his truck insured from the OP for the period 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009 and the Insured Declared Value was Rs.3,61,000/-.  The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the help of Mahindra and Mahindra Services Ltd. through M/s Dev Tractors, an authorized dealer of the manufacturing company.  The said truck was stolen by some  unknown person on 31.01.2009 at about 5.30 a.m., when the same was parked near Peer Ballabgarh, Sohna Road.  A criminal case was got registered under section 379 of the IPC on the same day and FIR No. 48 was registered at PS City Ballabgarh.  The information was also sent to the Insurance Company.  The claim intimation was given in the office of OP on 18.08.2009.  The Complainant took up the matter of claim of said tractor with the office of the OP on 30.08.2010 but he was handed over a letter dated 30.08.2010 in which grounds for rejection of the claim and reference of previous letter dated 19.08.2010 was mentioned whereas the complainant had not received the said letter earlier.  Even the legal notice sent by the Complainant was not responded by the OP despite receipt of notice.  Before repudiation of the claim,  Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 05.05.2016 dismissed the CC.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred First Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 13.09.2017 allowed the Appeal of the Complainant.  Therefore, OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 13.09.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission erred in ignoring the fact that there was delay of more than 199 days in intimating the claim to the Petitioner and despite opportunities being given, the respondent could not given any explanation for the same.  This is gross violation of policy condition no.1 on the part of the respondent.

2. The delayed intimation of claim deprives the insurer to investigate the matter, cross check the genuineness of the claim.

3. State Commission erred in ignoring the condition no.1 of the policy and phlethora of judgments by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission, wherein it has been held that delay in intimation of claim to the insurer is a valid ground for repudiation of the claim.

4. State Commission failed to appreciate that condition no.1 of the policy casts duty upon the insured to immediately give intimation of loss / theft to the insurer and police.   Further, State Commission erred in wrongly interpreting the IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011.  The respondent had also violated condition no.5 of the policy as his driver had negligently left the keys of the insured vehicle in the ignition switch and left the insured vehicle unattended for 15 minutes,which contributed to theft of vehicle.

5. The claim had arisen in the year 2009 and the said circular of IRDA had been issued in the year 2011, hence the same is not applicable to the facts of the case.   The State Commission has ignored the judgment of National Commission in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harleen Kaur, RP No. 2850 of 2015.

6. State Commission erred in ignoring the law that delay in intimation of theft to police and / or insurance company is valid ground of repudiation of claim.  This Commission affirmed the said ratio in the case of New India Assurance Co. Lt. Vs. Trilochan Jane, FA No. 321 of 2005 and Vikram Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No. 3864 of 2012.

7. State Commission failed to appreciate that insurance is a contract like any other commercial contract and terms of the contract has to be strictly interpreted while evaluating the liability of the insurer.  The same view has been upheld b y the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following cases :

1. Export Credit Guaranteee Corp. of India Vs. Garg Sons International ( 2013) ( 1) Scale 410.

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal ( 2005) ACJ 570

3. National Insurance Company V s. Anjan Shyam ( 2007) ACJ 2155.

8. State Commission erred in relying upon the judgments which are not at all applicable in the present facts and circumstance of the case and did not rely upon the judgments cited by the Petitioner.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Learned counsel for the Petitioner, apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5, argued that respondent lodged the FIR on the same day but intimated the petitioner about the theft of the vehicle after inordinate delay of 199 days on 18.08.2009 only.  Further, respondent filed the claim form on 26.02.2010 wherein he admitted in writing that driver had left the keys of the insured tractor in the ignition switch itself and left the insured vehicle unattended for 15 minutes and further admitted in the said claim form that driver went inside the house after parking the vehicle outside the house and when he returned back after 15 minutes, he found that the insured vehicle had been stolen.  The respondent had again admitted the said facts before the independent investigator appointed by the Petitioner.  Further, the Petitioner had written letter dated 19.08.2010 to the respondent and sought the explanation about the said inordinate delay in intimating the claim to the Petitioner.  As the respondent had no explanation for the same, he chose not to send any reply to the show cause.  Learned counsel also relied upon the order of this Commission in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar – RP No. 157 of 2016.

6.2.    Learned counsel for the respondent argued that respondent intimated about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company on 18.08.2009 as is evident from the letter dated 19.08.2010  issued by the Insurance Company though the said letter has never been received by the respondent.  It is further argued that respondent had informed the police authorities immediately after the incident and that surveyor report relied upon by the District forum is erroneous for the reason that said report was submitted after a gap of about 8 months from the date of intimation.  Moreover the reasons assigned in the said report was not sufficient to repudiate the claim of the respondent.  It is further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jaina Construction Company Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 154, Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. 2018 (1) CPR 907 ( SC) has clearly held that when the claim of the insured was found to be genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft.  Further, the State Commission also referred to the directions issued by IRDA, the apex institution governing the insurance companies which directed that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claim on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. 

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case , before the formal repudiation could be issued by the insurance company, complainant went to District Forum. However, the Petitioner / Insurance Company drew our attention to show cause notices dated 19.08.2010 and 30.08.2010 wherein basically two reasons have been taken and the Insurance Company asked the complainant to show cause as to why their claim should not be repudiated. The first reason was with respect to not  taking reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle as per condition no.5 of the policy as the driver left the ignition key in the ignition switch itself.  The second was with respect to delay of 199 days in intimating the insurance company. It is admitted that in this case FIR was lodged on the same day of theft i.e. 31.01.2019.

8.       We have considered the case in the light of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the parties.  In Gurshinder Singh Vs.. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. (2020) 1 SCC 612, Hon’ble Supreme concurring with the view taken by it in Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. ( Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017) decided on 04.10.2017, observed that if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be hyper technical view.  Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced, …….. then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.       

9.       In view of this judgment, the delay in intimating the insurance company is not a valid ground, especially when the FIR has been lodged on the same day of the theft itself.  As regards the second reason of not taking the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle, the State Commission has appropriately dealt with the contentions of the Petitioner / Insurance Company in its order.  Extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below :

“20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the vehicle was left un-attended inserting ignition key by driver of the complainant which made theft of the vehicle very easy and in this way the complainant has violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the opposite party-Insurance Company placed his reliance upon case law Jagdish Parshad versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 2013(2) C.P.J. 578 (N.C.) and Ramadhar Singh versus Universal Shampi General Insurance Company Limited and others, 2015(2) C.P.J. 398 (N.C.).

21. We have closely perused the above cited case laws. As per facts of case law referred above Jagdish Parshad versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (Supra), the driver of the stolen vehicle had to park the vehicle on one side of the road as he was to go to answer the call of nature. In the mean time, all of a sudden a marshal Jeep appeared there; 4-5 persons came out of the said jeep, opened the window of the truck and took away the truck vehicle forcibly. As per facts of case law referred above Ramadhar Singh versus Universal Shampi General Insurance Company Limited and others (Supra), the tractor vehicle was taken by the driver and son of the complainant on September 23rd , 2009 to plough the fields. After finishing plough work, it became dark and they parked the tractor vehicle in front of a hotel and went to have dinner about 50 ft. away. When they returned back, the tractor vehicle had been stolen.

22. We have closely perused the above cited case laws. Facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat different from the facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws. As per facts of the case in hand, the tractor-trolley vehicle was loaded with sand by Gajender Singh driver of the complainant. After unloading, the tractor-trolley vehicle was parked by Gajender Singh driver on January 31st , 2009 at about 5:30 A.M. near Peer Ballabgarh, Sohna Road at Nagla Enclave Part-2, Gajipur, Faridabad. Thereafter Gajender Singh driver had to enter a room in a nearby house to receive payment being sale price of the sand sold. Gajender Singh started talking the persons present there and after ten minutes when he returned back, by that time the tractor-trolley vehicle had been stolen by some unknown person. In this situation, we feel observations cannot be made that Gajender Singh left the tractor-trolley vehicle un-attended or had shown carelessness and negligence. Gajender Singh all of a sudden had to take decision to enter a room in a nearby house to receive payment of the amount. Gajender Singh had entered that room only to receive payment but he could not avoid some delay to return back as few persons present there started talking to him.

23. In these circumstances, we feel driver of the complainant had not shown so much carelessness and negligence. Apart from it, we can expect carefulness from a person which can be expected from a man of ordinary prudent. It cannot be always possible to keep a person watching the insured vehicle around the clock with open eyes. We feel merely because Gajender Singh-driver had to remain inside a nearby house for few minutes for receiving payment, findings cannot be given that the complainant or his driver had shown carelessness and negligence and left the vehicle un-attended. We feel that on this ground, the claim of the complainant should not be declined. The situation in the case in hand is somewhat different from the facts and circumstances of the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party, as referred above.”

10.     In the given facts and circumstance of the case, we are in broad agreement with the findings of the State Commission that there was not much carelessness or negligence on the part of the driver of the complainant in leaving the ignition key in the switch itself.  The State Commission has given a well reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings.  There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is  upheld.  Accordingly, RP is dismissed.

11      The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.