Per – Hon’ble Mr. Narendra Kawde, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/3/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.51 of 2010, Mr. Kundalik Tukaram Jadhav Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
[2] Heard Adv. Mateen Shaikh for the Appellant and Adv. S. R. Singh for the Respondent. We have perused the record.
[3] Undisputed facts are that the Appellant/Complainant owned a tractor. Tractor was insured with the Respondent/Opponent – Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity) for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of `4,09,000/- for the period 5/11/2008 to 4/11/2009. Said insured vehicle was stolen away on 18/12/2008 and incident of theft was reported to the concerned police station on the same day. Accordingly, First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 22/12/2008. However, intimation of theft of the insured vehicle was reported to the Insurance Company on 5/1/2009. An insurance claim was lodged. However, insurance claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company for violation of Conditions Nos.1 and 9 of the insurance policy. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of his insurance claim, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Forum. However, the Forum upholding the contention of the Insurance Company dismissed the consumer complaint by the impugned order. Being aggrieved thereby, the Complainant preferred this appeal.
[4] It is the contention of the Appellant/Complainant that on the day of theft of insured vehicle itself, intimation was given orally to the Branch Office of the Insurance Company. However, written intimation was given only on 5/1/2009 together with a copy of FIR. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company contended that due to belated intimation of theft the insurance company lost its valuable right to investigate in the theft and thus, causing breach of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy which stipulated that an immediate intimation of such incidence is required to be given. In the instant case, admittedly, the incidence of theft of insured vehicle occurred on 18/12/2008. However, written intimation alongwith a copy of FIR was given to the Insurance Company only on 5/1/2009. Thus, there was a delay of about 18 days on the part of the Appellant/Complainant to intimate the incidence of theft of the insured vehicle to the Insurance Company. There is no cogent documentary evidence produced on the record to corroborate the contention of the Appellant/Complainant that an oral intimation about incidence of theft was given to the Branch Office of the Insurance Company on the day of theft itself. Therefore, that contention cannot be accepted.
[5] Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011 (In the matters of Rang Lal (Deceased) and Others Vs. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others) decided on 1/9/2011 (Quorum:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Batta, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Mr. Anupam Dasgputa, Member). In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the revision petition upholding the case of the Insurance Company that as there was a delay of nine days to inform the insurance company about the theft, which could be fatal to the investigation and it completely prevented the insurance company from carrying out any investigation as to the truth of the alleged theft.
[6] Admittedly, in the present case the Appellant/Complainant did not care to inform the insurance company about the theft for a period of 18 days, which was fatal to the investigation. Moreover, as pleaded by the Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, Condition No.9 of the insurance policy casts a duty on the Insured to observe and fulfill the terms and conditions as endorsed in the insurance policy. Without fulfillment of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable for settling any claim arising under the insurance policy. Thus, we find no reason to take a different view than what has been already taken by the District Forum. We find present appeal is misconceived and devoid of any substance. For the reasons recorded, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 23rd July, 2013
