This appeal is directed against the final order dated 14.01.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda in CC No. 66 of 2017. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant M. Haque Allias makramul Haque registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda to the affect that he purchased a Hero Glamour Motor Bike which was duly covered with insurance by the Insurance Company Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ltd which was stolen away on 09.02.2017 at Rathbari Sabji Market, Malda and soon after the incident he filed a written complaint before the I.C. English Bazar, P.S. but the Police Station did not give any acknowledgement to that affect. Thereafter, the English Bazar Police Station registered theft case under Section 379 of IPC on 18.02.2017. The police submitted the final report on 12.04.2017. In the meantime, he raised the claim by submitting the Form before the Insurance company for reimbursement of the value of the stolen motor bike. The Insurance Company did not make any response to the prayer of the complainant and for that reason he registered the Consumer Complaint. The Ld. Forum has registered the Consumer Complaint and sent notice to the Insurance Company who has contested the case by filing Written Version and contended inter-alia that the FIR was registered after 10 days that is on 18.02.2017 and theft was intimated to the O.P. Insurance Company on 19.02.2017 that is gap of 11 days which was a gross violation of the policy condition on the part of the complainant and for that reason Insurance Company was not liable to pay any claim amount.
The Ld. Forum after recording evidences and after hearing the arguments has come to a conclusion that due to unexplained delay of registering FIR and belated intimacy of theft to the Insurance Company the complainant was not entitled to get any relief under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and for that reason the instant Consumer Case was dismissed on contest. Being aggrieved with the order, the complainant registered the appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity, error and not in accordance with law and misconception of fact. The appeal was duly admitted and the notice was sent to the address of the respondent who has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. Pawa. On behalf of the appellant the Ld. Advocate Mr. J.N. Chowdhury has conducted the hearing before this Commission.
Decision with reasons
Admitted position is that the FIR of the complainant regarding theft of motor bike was registered on 18.02.2017 while the intimation to the Insurance Company about theft was given on 19.02.2017. There is delay of FIR of 9 days and registering an intimation of theft was 10 days. It is also fact that the Police has investigated the case and thereafter came to a conclusion that the allegation of theft was genuine one but the stolen motor bike could not be traced out and for that reason the Police Authority has closed the investigation by submitting the FRT. Now the question is had the Insurance Company any liability in this particular case to make reimbursement to the complainant the value of the stolen motor bike. In support of this argument Ld. Advocate of the appellant referred the judicial decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 as well as the decision of SCDRC, Haryana in H. Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. ltd case. Ld. Advocate of the respondent in support of his argument referred some judicial decisions as follows.
- 2149 of 2017
- 2018(2) CPR 587 (NC)
- 2016(4) CPR 291 (NC)
After hearing both sides and after going through the judicial decisions referred above, we find that in this particular case the registration of FIR was delayed for 9 days and raising claim of compensation and intimation to the Insurance Company was delayed for 10 days. While as per terms and conditions of Insurance coverage the intimation of theft to Police Station and to the Insurance Company should be immediately but there is no time frame as to how many days to be included in the term “immediate”. The judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred here in this case on the part of the appellant speaks that in that case a track was stolen on 23.03.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 24.03.2010 and the intimation to the Insurance Company was registered on 30.03. 2010. In that particular case the Police submitted the FRT and could not trace out the vehicle. While, Insurance Company has investigated the case through their investigator and came to a conclusion that the vehicle was stolen away from the possession of the driver of the vehicle and for that reason the assessor of the Insurance Company estimated the value. But Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on account of delay of intimation and delay of FIR. Here in our particular case the delay of FIR was there for 9 days and delay of intimation was there for 10 days. While, the Police Authority after investigation submitted the FRT as the vehicle could not be traced out. So, there was an opportunity to the Insurance Company to set in motion to investigate the matter through their personal investigator. Rather, Police also had the opportunity to investigate the case as because mere delay of 9 days did not prevent to investigate the case. Rather, the Police has completed the investigation and submitted the FRT. So, in this particular case the delay of FIR and delay of intimation of theft to the Insurance Company appears to be not too fatal to the legitimate claim of the insured and for that reason the order of Ld. Forum appears to be very mechanical one and rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of Policy holders in the insurance industry. Rather the complainant in reply to the questionnaires categorically explained about the causes of delay of registering the FIR appeared to be very convincing one and Ld. Forum has ignored this aspect at the time of adjudication the dispute. So, In our considered view, the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity and liable to be interfered. Thus, the appeal succeeds on merit.
Hence, it is ordered
That the appeal and the same is allowed on contest without cost. The final order and judgement of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda dated 14.01.2020 in CC No. 66 of 2017 is hereby set aside. The complainant/appellant is entitled to get value of the stolen motor bike and for that reason the respondent Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ltd is hereby asked to immediate release of claim amount of Rs. 49,000/- in favour of the appellant/complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost in favour of the complainant either by cheque or cash within 45 days from this day, failing which 6% Per-annum as interest will be imposed over the awarded money.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda.
