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 29.06.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 961/16  in which order dated 26.07.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 210/15 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was  Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company) was Appellant before the State Commission in FA/961/2016 and OP before the District Forum in Complaint No. 210/15.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent on 19.01.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 29.02.2024 (Petitioner) and 04.11.2019 (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: -           

The complainant /Petitioner got his truck insured from the Insurance Company valid from 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014.  On 21.12.2013, the insured truck was stolen near from the house of driver Jitender @ Bhim S/o Satyawan R/o V. Vessor, Tehsil Madlauda, Disttr. Panipat.  The complainant informed the authorized agent of the Respondent namely Vikas Narula.  He assured the complainant that the policy amount will be released in his favour.  Thereafter, the complainant tried to search his truck at his own level but could not succeeded then he went  to the police  station and reported the matter on 10.01.2014 and police registered the FIR on 10.01.2014.  The complainant handed over all the documents to the Agent related to the policy and the agent assured the complainant that the amount will be released within 390 days.  On 25.08.2015 the complainant received letter dated 19.08.2015 from the insurance company regarding the repudiation of claim on the ground that the report was given to the police about the theft after 20 days.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.         Vide Order dated 26.07.2016, in Complaint No. 210/15 the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 26.07.2016 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 29.06.2017 in FA No. 961/2016  has allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint.

6.         Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 29.06.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner informed about the theft of the vehicle to the agent of Respondent/Insurance Company from whom he purchased the said Insurance Policy of the vehicle.  The Fora below also failed to consider that the Respondent Company has not asked to the Petitioner to give copy of FIR and other documents immediately, therefore, there was a delay in lodging the FIR and delay in submission of other documents to the Respondent.  

The Fora below failed to appreciate that there is a general phenomenon, the person while purchasing the insurance from the agent, receives the cover note only and never go into the terms and conditions of the policy and remain satisfy that their vehicle is under the insurance policy.In this matter also, the Petitioner is a layman and having no knowledge about the terms and conditions written in English language. They took the policy due to strictness of the Govt. agencies and only knows that without insurance policy the vehicle will be challenged.The delay in lodging FIR is not deliberate and not intentional as the Petitioner is a layman, however the delay has been explained by the petitioner. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has not twisted the story rather he came with clean hands before both the Fora below. The Petitioner cooperated with the investigator and provided all the relevant documents which were asked by the investigator, as the only reason of repudiation of claim is delay in the FIR.

The Fora below failed to appreciate that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Respondent/Insurance Company. The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Petitioner informed the agent of the Respondent Company about the loss of the vehicle timely, the agent of the respondent company is also duty bound to inform/suggest the Petitioner to inform the Insurance Company or he himself can inform to the Insurance Company, the company being the limited company and is not a government company, they took every step in the favour to repudiate the claim of the Petitioner.

The State Commission failed to consider that the District Forum after going through the facts and circumstances has rightly passed the claim of the petitioner on non-standard basis while the State Commission rejected the same by observing that the company is a limited company and not a government company, thereby deprived the right of the Petitioner when the limited company are taking all the benefits like government agencies then they should also be covered under the same category, the limited company remains in profit and the government company remains in loss and the mere sufferer is the layman of the country.

7.         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.

7.1       In addition to the averments made under grounds (para 6) the  Petitioner contended that he is a lay man and doesn't know the legal aspect and there is a general rule that the insurer never give the copy of the insurance policy and never explained the terms and condition of the policy in his vernacular, and this is a general practice in India. It is further contended that the Commission demanded the final report which was submitted by the petitioner and till date the vehicle is not traceable. The District forum has rightly observed that the petitioner should be compensated on the non-standard basis. The agencies i.e. police and the insurance company, work under the statue of the Government of India and the consumer Forum is made for the lack of services. If the Government and agencies are taking the benefits of the rules made by the Government of India, then all the agencies are duty bound to do the work, for which they are made. The District Forum has also rightly observed by the passing order on non- standard basis that the petitioner has paid the policy amount and he cannot be deprived of for his right to claim. It is therefore, prayed that the petitioner may kindly be awarded full and final payment along with 18% interest on the policy purchased by the Petitioner in the interest of Justice.

7.2       On the other hand the Respondent/Insurance Company contended that  Petitioner purchased insurance policy from Respondent valid w.e.f. 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014 for his vehicle Tata Hyva (Dumper). As per the statement of the Petitioner insured vehicle was stolen on 21.12.2013 and an FIR bearing No. was lodged before PS Madlauda (Panipat) on 10.01.2014 (i.e. 20 days later). Despite repeated reminders dated 21.07.2014, 06.08.2014, 29.10.2014, 20.01.2015, 03.02.2015 and 03.03.2015 petitioner failed to provide necessary documents to process the claim. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated on 19.08.2015 for breach of condition of the policy. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the Petitioner directing the respondent to make payments on non-standard basis. Respondent being aggrieved filed First Appeal before the State Commission, Haryana. Appeal was allowed by the State Commission setting aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present Revision Petition. The  Hon'ble Commission did not appreciate the fact that the onus to explain delay in informing the theft of the vehicle was upon the respondents. Admittedly there is a delay of 20 days in lodging of FIR and 21 days in informing the insurance company, which remains unexplained by the respondent and it must therefore suffer the rigors relating to it.  In support of his contentions the Respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2018) 9 SCC 798 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha. In the referred decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Complaint on the ground of delay in informing the Police about the theft and intimating the Insurance Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that 'In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. The District Forum correctly held in para 6 of its order dated 26.07.2016 in complaint No.210/15 that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of policy. Once this view was taken by the District Forum, the respondent could not be made liable to settle the claim of the petitioner on non-standard basis, which even otherwise also is in violation of the IRDA guidelines contained in circular No. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011. The petitioner was not able to prove that the delay in intimation was due to circumstances beyond his control. It is further contended that in spite of several reminders the Insured/Petitioner didn't showed interest in complying formalities required for processing of its claim. The  terms and conditions of the policy cannot be varied arbitrarily and have to be strictly construed as held in M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills v United India Insurance Co. 2010 (95) AIC 28. The petitioner has breached this condition of the policy by lodging the FIR after 20 days and intimating the Respondent Company after 21 days. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. That the petitioner has breached condition No. 5 of the policy which clearly states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage. The petitioner has left/parked the insured vehicle un- attending/without taking proper precautions to prevent it from any damage or loss in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is also contended by the Respondent that the petitioner has failed to establish its allegation with respect to the information being shared with the respondents authorized agent. The petitioner has not even called the said agent in the witness box to support its averment. In such circumstances no negative inference can be drawn against the respondent. The petitioner should not be allowed to introduce a new fact at a belated stage, which was never a part of its original complaint and neither has been pressed or argued at any stage. It is submitted that the petitioner states under the grounds that he purchased the policy from the agent and received the cover note only and never go into the terms and conditions of the policy. It is apparent that at no stage, the petitioner has raised his contention and argued and put emphasis over the said fact.

8.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, the theft took place on 21.12.2013 and FIR was lodged on 10.01.2014, i.e., with a delay of 20 days.  Respondent/Insurance Company contended that delay in lodging the FIR is violation of the policy conditions entitling the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim.  The conditions of the  insurance policy clearly states 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 and co-operate with the insurance company in securing the conviction of the offender.  Inordinate delay in intimation to Police/lodging the FIR becomes fatal in timely investigation of the case by the Police Authorities and locating the lost vehicle.  We have considered the case in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially in the case of Gulshinder Singh Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020, decided on January 24, 2020.  In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-

“15. We find, that the second part of Condition No. 1 deals with the ‘theft or criminal act other than the accident’. It provides, 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 and co­operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. 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. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.”

9.         The Petitioner has not given any valid reason for such a delay in lodging the FIR.  The reasoning given that he is a layman and does not know the legal aspects, is not valid.  Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.  The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with the same.  There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence, the same is upheld.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

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