JUDGMENT 25.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 4.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1381/2008 of respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.6.37 lacs being the Insured Declared Value of the policy alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. with effect from the date of lodging the claim i.e. 2.9.2006 till its payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the car of the complainant i.e. Hyundai Accent (Viva) CRDI Model 2005 bearing Regd. No.HR-10-H-0880 insured with OP Insurance Company was stolen on the intervening night of 23/24.08.2006 when it was parked at his friend’s residence in Rohini New Delhi, who was using the vehicle at that time. FIR bearing No.690 of 2006, dated 25.8.2006, U/s 379 at P.S. Parshant Vihar, New Delhi was lodged and the OP Insurance Company was also intimated about the theft through written request on 26.8.2006 and claim was filed. In the month of Oct., 2006 the police authorities filed Untraced Report dated 11.10.2006 and the complainant then submitted an application with Registering Authority, Sonepat for entering the theft report in the register, so as to avoid any illegal transfer of the vehicle. However, to the utter shock of complainant, OP Insurance Company illegally and arbitrarily denied his claim vide letter dated 31.10.2006 on the ground that intimation to them was given at a belated stage i.e. on 2.9.2006 after one week of the occurence. It was alleged that one investigator of Insurance Company Sh.G.B.Mathur also contacted the complainant as well as his friend Nitin Chaudhary and got recorded their statements as well as the statements of neighbourers but inspite of that nothing positive was done. The matter was then taken up with the Insurance Ombudsman, who vide order dated 8.1.2008 directed OP Company to at least pay 50% of the Insured Declared Value by 31.1.2008 but that too was not paid by the OP Company. Hence, alleging unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand, the stand of OPs before the District Forum was that for the first time they came to know about the alleged theft on 2.9.2006 i.e. after 10 days of the occurrence of theft. It was pleaded that the repudiation of claim was rightly done after due application of mind and as per the terms & conditions of the policy. It was further submitted that complainant himself failed to submit the required documents and to give consent for settlement of claim as per order of Insurance Ombudsman. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of OPs is that the claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31.10.2006 Anneuxre R-2 on the ground that the occurrence of loss to the vehicle was not intimated to them immediately and therefore, there was violation of Condition No.1 of the policy. According to the complainant, the vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 23/24-8-2006. The matter was reported to the police on 25.8.2006 when FIR (Annexure C-2) was recorded. The facts leading to the theft of the vehicle have been incorporated in the FIR but the intimation to OPs was given on 2.9.2008 i.e. after 10 days of the commission of theft. He further also submitted that in the instant case the policy had already expired by then i.e. on 30.8.2006. After putting forth aforesaid point of arguments, learned counsel for OPs submitted that because of delayed information the insurer was deprived of an opportunity for getting the matter investigated after the occurrence of theft, thus, on account of this delay of 10 days in informing OPs the claim of complainant had been rightly dismissed. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the case titled New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Trilochan Jane ; First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 by the Hon’ble National Commission.(Photocopy of which has also been taken up on the record). On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant argued that in fact the intimation was given telephonically as well as in writing on 26.8.2008 to the OPs, so there was no unreasonable delay in the matter of giving information to OPs regarding the theft of his vehicle, therefore, learned District Forum had rightly allowed claim in this case by relying upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Parul Bala 2009 CTJ 514(CP)(NC). 7. We have given our thought consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the observations of their lordships in the above said rulings. Before we proceed further, let us examine whether there was any breach of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy as claimed by OPs. The Condition NO.1 of the insurance policy reads as under ; “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the Insured. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending. Prosecution Inquest Fatal Injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act, which may be subject of claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.” Emphasis has been laid on the word “immediately”. The Word ‘immediately’ has not been defined under the Act. Resort has to be made to the dictionary meaning assigned to it. As per Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the word ‘immediately’ means ‘at once’. As per Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word ‘immediately’ is defined as under: - (1). “The word “immediately”, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonable requisite for doing the thing”. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word immediately’ means: - “Immediately. Without interval of time, without delay, straightway, or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is usually construed to mean “within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of the circumstances of the case”, although strictly, it means, “not deferred by any period of time. The words “immediately” and “forthwith” have generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression “within a reasonable time” and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay.” According to Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word ‘immediately’ is defined as under: - “Immediately. “Immediately” is to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed. Vol. 23, para 1618, p. 1178. The word ‘immediately’ is stronger than the expression ‘within a reasonable time’, and imply prompt, vigorous action, without any delay. It means all convenient speed. The word ‘immediately’ should not be construed so as to require doing something which is impossible.” 8. As per Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the word ‘immediately’ means ‘at once’ whereas Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word ‘immediately’ in the context of contract has to be taken as reasonable requisite time for doing the thing. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word ‘immediately’ means doing of a thing straightway or forthwith but when used in the context of contract, it is usually construed to mean “within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case”. More or less to the effect, is the same meaning assigned in Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Since, in the present case, there was a contract between the insured and the insurer and, the word ‘immediately’, under the circumstances, has to be construed within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case. 9. Further, here in the instant case it would be pertinent to reproduce the observations of their lordships of Hon’ble National Commission given in the above cited ruling. The said observations are as under ; “ In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that the terms of Policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The Policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’. In the context of a theft of the car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. To the similar effect, is the Judgment of this Commission in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri Dharam Singh and Another in First Appeal No. 426 of 2004 decided on 04.07.2006.” 10. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid observations of the ruling relied upon by learned counsel for OPs goes a longway to show that in this cited case there was delay of 9 days in informing the insurer and delay of two days in lodging the FIR and on that count the claim of the complainant was found to have been rightly repudiated by the insurer. On the same analogy, we have no option but to observe that here in the instant case before us also there was delay of two days in lodging FIR and a delay of 10 days in giving information to the insurer. That too, after the expiry of the policy period on 30.8.2006. 11. Here, it would also be relevant to observe that the complainant could not show or place any material on the file if any intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to OPs prior to 2.9.2006. The case law relied upon by the complainant i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Parul Bala 2009 CTJ 514(CP)(NC) is of May 2009 whereas case law cited by the Learned Counsel for OPs is latest one which was pronounced on 9.12.2009, meaning thereby the latter would prevail. Moreover, there was delay of 26 days in the case law cited by the complainant whereas in the case law cited by OPs even delay of 9 days was considered unreasonable justifying the repudiation of claim by the insurance Company. 12. Faced with this situation, we have no option but to rely upon the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane which has been cited by the learned counsel for OPs/appellants. 13. In the result, this appeal succeeds and consequently the impugned order is hereby set aside and complaint filed by respondent(complainant) is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
