Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/918

SHANKARLAL SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLA MANDALAM MS GIC - Opp.Party(s)

MS. SAMBHAVANA RAJPUT

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

 

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 22.07.2013 passed in C.C.No.154/2011 by District Commission, Chhatarpur)

 

SHANKARLAL SAINI,

S/O SHRI HARPRASAD SAINI,

R/O WARD NO. 25, MAHAL ROAD,

CHHATARPUR                                                                                          …     APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLA MANDLAM

    M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

    DHARI HOUSE, SECOND FLOOR, N.S.C. BOSE ROAD,

    CHENNAI.

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER, MANGLAM FINANCE CO.

    SHOP NO.2, MAHASHAKTI COMPLEX,

    BUS STAND, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                           ….   RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                   

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                 Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Vinay Khare appears on behalf of Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

          

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 09.07.2024)

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

                         The complainant/appellant being dissatisfied by the order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in

 

-2-

C.C.No.154/2011, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed, has filed this appeal.

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant after getting finance from the opposite poarty no.2-finance company had purchased an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration number MP-16 R-0413 for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 14.01.2010 to 13.01.2011. On 06.06.2010, the subject auto was stolen from Bus Stand. He searched the Auto Rickshaw and thereafter lodged FIR on 09.06.2010. The intimation was given to the insurance company 02.07.2010 and on 20.03.2011 the claim form was sent via registered post but the insurance company repudiated the claim unilaterally.  The complainant therefore approached the District Commission seeking cost of Auto Rickshaw Rs.1,25,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                The opposite party no.1-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant informed the insurance company about theft on 11.04.2011. FIR was also lodged with the police belatedly by three days. Since there was violation of policy terms and conditions, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

 

-3-

4.                The opposite party no.2-finance company denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that the opposite party no.2 the subject Auto Rickshaw and still Rs.1,35,000/- is due against the complainant. It is therefore prayed that if the complainant succeeds in this compliant, the amount be directed to be paid to the finance company.

5.                The District Commission holding that since there is delayed intimation to the police and the insurance company about theft, there is violation of policy terms and conditions, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  Hence this appeal by the complainant.

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

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has failed to consider that he immediately informed the police and the insurance company about theft despite that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint holding that there was delayed intimation to the police and the insurance company about theft. She argued that in case of theft, the violation of policy terms and conditions is not germane despite that the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that there was violation of policy terms and conditions. She therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 insurance company argued that since there was delay in intimation to the

-4-

police as also to the insurance company with regard to theft the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-finance company argued that the finance company financed the Auto Rickshaw and still there is due amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest against the complainant. He prayed that in case any amount is awarded to the complainant, it be directed to be paid to the finance company.

10.              Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find that as per complainant’s pleading the subject auto was stolen on 06.06.2010. The FIR (at page 30) was lodged with the police on 09.06.2010 by one Milan Saini after three days.

11.              Further in repudiation letter dated 08.10.2011 of the insurance company, the insurance company has stated that “It has been observed that theft of your vehicle took place on 06.06.2010  and the claim was intimated to us belatedly as on 11.04.2011 which has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of the vehicle. This constitutes breach of condition nos. 1 and 9 of the insurance policy.

 

-5-

12.              Admittedly, theft of Auto Rickshaw took place on 06.06.2010 and the FIR was lodged with the police on 09.06.2010 i.e. after three days. Also the complainant failed to file any documentary evidence on record that when he informed the insurance company whereas as per policy terms and conditions, the intimation should be given to the insurance company within a period of 48 hours. The insurance company has stated that they received intimation with regard to theft on 11.04.2011.

13.              The opposite party no.2-finance company in its reply has submitted that they had financed a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- on 15.01.2010 to purchase Auto Rickshaw which was to repaid in 35 EMIs of Rs.4,485/- and till 06.06.2010 he had deposited only Rs.21,975/- towards repayment of financed amount. Till 30.11.2011 including penalty there were outstanding dues of Rs.1,35,000/- on the complainant. This clearly shows that in order to escape from the liability of repayment of financed amount he intentionally made delay in lodging FIR that the subject Auto Rickshaw was stolen. If he was really bonafide, he could have deposited the installments of loan regularly and took immediate action to inform the police and the insurance company regarding theft of Auto Rickshaw.

14.              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

-6-

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 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.

15.              Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2022) CPJ 119 (SC).

16.              In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that in case of theft immediate intimation to police is mandatory and in case of accident, immediate intimation to the insurance company is mandatory. In the present case, admittedly the intimation of theft which took place on 06.06.2010 was intimated to the police on 09.06.2010 i.e. after three days and the insurance company was also informed belatedly, thus there is clear violation of policy terms and conditions. The complainant has also not given any valid reason for that delay.

-7-

17.              Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as also to the insurance company.

18.              The District Commission has also not committed any error while dismissing the complaint. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant our interference in the appellate jurisdiction. 

19.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

                  Acting President                          Member