Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

In this Appeal, the Order dated 11-07-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/770/2013, is under challenge.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the insured motor cycle of the Appellant got stolen on 20-05-2011.  Thereafter, the Appellant intimated the matter to the local police station on 21-05-2011 and submitted claim on  31-05-2011. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 1 repudiated the said claim on account of non-submission of requisite documents and delayed intimation to it. Hence, the complaint case was filed.

Parties were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through carefully.

It is indeed strange that notwithstanding the Respondent No. 1 cried foul over non-receipt of requisite documents, it has not stated in specific terms the names of those documents that they still want from the Appellant.  On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that despite receipt of requisite documents, the Respondent No. 1 kept on harping on the same string time and again.  He also claimed that the Appellant already submitted Indemnity Bond and Letter of Subrogation to the Respondent No. 1. 

As regards delay, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that vide letter dated 08-03-2013, the Appellant already explained the 10 days delay in giving intimation to the Respondent No. 1.

Be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that the local Police Station was duly informed of the matter of theft of motor cycle in question on the very next day of happening of the incident.  After investigating the matter, the Police already submitted FRT and no such adverse finding is there to suspect the genuineness of the incident. 

It is true that the Appellant did make some delay in intimating the matter to the Respondent No. 1.  Having said that, let us not forget that the Insurance Company does not have any infrastructure to start parallel investigation vis-à-vis Police authority to try and locate missing motor cycles.  The Investigator deputed by the Insurance Company merely coordinates/interacts with concerned Police Station and local people to find out the genuineness of the incident. As such, some delay here and there in intimating such incident to the Insurance Company cannot be seen as fatal and under any circumstances, cannot stand in the way of settlement of a claim which is otherwise admissible. 

The IRDA too directed Insurance Companies vide its Circular dated 20-09-2011 not to repudiate genuine claims on account of delayed intimation to the Insurance Company.  It seems, Insurers are acting on such directive in its breaches.  This is not desirable.    

The genuineness of the incident of theft of insured motor cycle being not in question, it was highly improper on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to repudiate the instant claim so casually in a mechanical fashion. 

In view of this, we direct the Respondent No. 1 to settle the instant claim within 40 days hence by paying Rs. 59,993/- to the Appellant along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.

The impugned order stands allowed accordingly.