Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/540

SMT.RAMSHRI TOMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GIC. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.SHARMA

14 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 07.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.491/2016 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

SMT. RAMSHRI TOMAR,

W/O SHRI PREM SINGH TOMAR,

R/O P.H.E COLONY, SHARMA FARM ROAD,

CHAR SHAHAR KA NAKA, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                              … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

1. CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER,

    H-102/B, FIRST FLOOR, METRO TOWER,

    INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. RAJVEER SINGH KAURAV,

    EXECUTIVE, CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL

    INSURANCE CO. LTD. INDUSIND BANK,

    CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                             ...   RESPONDENT.  

 

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY              :    MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

             None for the respondent no.2.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 14.05.2024)

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

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.491/2016 whereby the complaint filed by her has been dismissed.

 

-2-

2.                In nutshell facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration no. RJ-11 GA-3516 owned by the complainant/appellant was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company for a period w.e.f. 16.12.2014 to 15.12.2015 for IDV Rs.6,30,180/-. The subject vehicle was stolen on 24.05.2015 from Jhansi (UP) of which report was lodged with the police and the insurance company was also informed.  The claim along with requisite documents including Final Report filed with the insurance company was repudiated vide letter dated 22.09.2015 on the ground of delayed intimation and left the key inside the vehicle which is clear violation of policy condition.  The complainant therefore, filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company seeking relief sum insured of vehicle with compensation.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company opposed the complaint stating that intimation of theft occurred on 24.05.2015 was given to the police on 09.07.2015 i.e. after 46 days and the insurance company was informed on 28.07.2015 i.e. after 67 days whereas the immediate intimation to the police as also to the insurance company was required to be given. Also, the complainant left the key inside the subject vehicle and did not take reasonable care to safeguard the subject vehicle. Thus, there is violation of the policy terms and

-3-

conditions and thus the complainant’s claim is not payable. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.

4.                The District Commission vide impugned order dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the insurance company.

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

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that immediately after theft of vehicle the complainant’s driver tried to lodge FIR with the police and after directions of the Court, the police lodged FIR. Similarly the insurance company was also informed. Since her father-in-law fell ill, therefore delay occurred in giving information to the insurance company. The insurance company unilaterally on the ground that there is violation of policy condition no.1 and 5 repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. The District Commission without considering the evidence available on record also erred in dismissing the complaint and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company argued that as per condition of the policy the complainant/appellant should have informed the insurance company in writing immediately upon occurrence of any incident, loss or damage.  In

-4-

the instant matter the complainant intimated the insurance company as also the police regarding incident of theft belatedly. Also the complainant’s driver left the key in the vehicle and did not take reasonable care to safeguard the subject vehicle. Since there was violation of policy conditions, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.  He submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.                On perusal of record, we find that the complainant’s vehicle insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 16.12.2014 to 15.12.2015 (C-2) was stolen on 24.05.2015 from Jhansi (UP) and it is stated by the complainant that on 25.05.2015, the complainant’s driver tried to lodge FIR with the police but the police did not lodge FIR, he also made an application to SP and after the order of the court, the police lodged FIR on 09.07.2015. However, from the record we do not find any such application addressed to SHO police station concerned or SP with regard to lodging FIR.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant lodged FIR with the police on 09.07.2015 (C-5) regarding theft of her subject vehicle which had occurred on 24.05.2015 after 46 days. Also the insurance company was informed on 28.07.2015 i.e. after 67 days.  The insurance company vide letter dated 28.07.2015 (C-6) sought clarification from the complainant with regard to

-5-

delay in intimation. The complainant vide letter dated nil (C-8) had given clarification that her driver Munebh Singh Tomar tried to lodge FIR with the police station Raksa Jhansi but the police did not lodge FIR. However, we find that there is no such documentary evidence on record in this regard. The insurance company vide letter dated 30.07.2015 (C-11) and dated 18.08.2015 (C-12) sought certain documents from the complainant but the complainant failed to file the same. Thereafter the insurance company vide letter dated 22.09.2015 (C-14) repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that there was delay of 46 days in informing the police and there was delay of 65 days in informing the insurance company thus there was violation of policy condition no.1 and 9. 

10.              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) hasheld 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

-6-

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).

11.              In the present case, admittedly the FIR of theft which took place on 24.05.2015 was lodged with the police on 09.07.2015 i.e. after 46 days and the insurance company was informed on 28.07.2015 i.e. after 67 days thus there is clear violation of policy terms and conditions. The complainant has also not given any valid reason for that delay. There is huge delay of 46 days in informing the police and 67 days in informing the insurance company and the complainant failed to explain such delay.

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 and National Commission, we are of a considered view that the insurance company has not committed any error in repudiating the claim

-7-

on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as also to the insurance company.

14.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has also committed no error in dismissing the complaint. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

15.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

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

            Acting President                              Member