This appeal has been filed by the appellant Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 11.08.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.81 of 2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent /complainant had insured her vehicle with the opposite party/appellant herein with validity from 5.5.2009 to 4.5.2010. During the currency of the policy the vehicle met with an accident on 1/2.6.2009.  The insurance claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 09.09.2009 on the basis of the report of investigator dated 23.06.2009 that the fire was not natural, but the vehicle was burnt. The complainant filed a consumer complaint No.81 of 2010 before the State Commission.  The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction as well as on merit that the fire was stage managed and therefore, it was requested that the complaint be dismissed.  The State Commission however allowed the complaint and passed the following order on 11.08.2015 :-

“The complaint is primarily allowed.  The opponent insurance company is hereby directed to pay the complainant 13,50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of institution of the complaint till its payment within a period of one month.  The opponent will also pay a Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses within the fixed period.

        If the above amount is not paid within the time fixed then the opponent will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the entire amount to the complainant.

        Both the parties will bear their own litigation expenses.”

3.      Hence the present appeal.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the surveyor in his survey report dated 23.06.2009 has clearly raised doubt about the occurrence of the fire incident.  Photographs taken by the surveyor suggest that the vehicle fell into a ditch, however, the same was recovered and then put on fire.  Learned counsel stated that the surveyor in his report has clearly mentioned the following facts:-

“1.     That it is stated by the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of incident Sh. Suryanath Yadav stated in his recorded statement that the truck was having National permit whereas the owner of the vehicle stated in her recorded statement that the permit of the truck was UP permit, the driver is very important person and he should know about the fact that whether the permit of the vehicle was national or U.P. permit.

2.       That the information of the incident in question was given to the police station on dated 6.6.2009 after 5 days of incident, whereas the owner of the vehicle should have intimated the police immediately after the incident.

3.       That the driver Suryanath Yadav stated in his recorded statement that he cannot tell how the truck caught fire or who put it on fire.  I was told by the conductor (khlassy) that smoke is coming out of truck.

4.       That me the investigator contacted Shri Shashi Kant Mishra the local reporter for Dainik Jagran newspaper and interrogated then he orally admitted that there are different versions of the incident and people found the incident is suspicious on the basis of this I get published in news regarding suspicion of the incident but Shri Shashi Kant Mishra refused to give any written statement to me and told that this is against the profession of the media personal.  Similarly the sales man Shripati Ram working at Jagdamba Filling Station orally admitted that the incident is suspicious. 

          Therefore on the facts and delayed intimation to police, the statement of driver, oral statement of Shri Shashi Kant Mishra local reporter Dainik Jagran and sales man of M/s. Jagdamba Filling Station the incident is found suspicious.”

5.      Learned counsel further stated that the local press reporter has got the news printed in the paper that the truck was put on fire after getting the truck fallen into a ditch.  Though, the reporter has not given anything in writing to the investigator, it is the fact that the local reporter may have verified the actual facts of the case. Similarly sales man of the petrol pump also did not give anything in writing though he orally accepted that the truck was put on fire.

6.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that it was a new truck purchased only 2-3 months back and therefore, no purpose would be served to the complainant if the truck is deliberately put on fire.  Even the learned counsel for the insurance company is not able to tell any purpose behind deliberately putting the truck on fire. The truck genuinely fell into the ditch and caught fire immediately.  There was delay in giving intimation to the police due to inadvertence. Even in the investigator’s report, it has been mentioned that the sales man of the petrol pump who is stated to have seen the incident has not given anything in writing.  Similarly, the reporter has also not given anything in writing to the investigator.  Consequently, the assertion made in the investigator’s report cannot be relied upon. 

7.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.  Though it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the truck was deliberately put on fire to get the insurance claim, but no independent proof has been filed by the appellant to prove that the damage was stage managed.  Even the statements of the reporter as well as of the sales man of the petrol pump relied upon by the investigator have not been filed because those persons have refused to give any statement in writing.  This appeals to logic that if a truck is purchased only 2-3 months back, why the truck owner will put the truck into fire, because in any case the insurance claim can be awarded to the value of IDV at the most.  Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not been able to pin point any purpose behind the deliberate action of the owner of the truck to put the truck on fire.  Clearly there is a delay in giving intimation to the police and no proper justification has been given by the complainant.  Though, it is true that it is not a case of theft where immediate intimation to the police is required yet the role of FIR in such a case cannot be minimised.

8.      In the present case, the truck body has been burnt as stated by surveyor/investigator, still the matter could not be investigated by the police properly as information was given to the police on 06.06.2009 with delay of 4 days.  It is also important to note that the intimation to the Insurance Company has been given on 3.06.2005 whereas the condition No.1 of the policy requires that in case of accident immediate notice will be given to the Insurance Company to enable the Insurance Company to appoint a surveyor to have the spot inspection as quickly as possible.  Here, the surveyor could only be appointed on 03.06.2005 who could not verify the recovery of truck by the crane which is a crucial factor in the present case.  Definitely the respondent/complainant has violated the condition of the policy by not immediately giving information to the Insurance Company.  The State Commission has not given any importance to this delay and has allowed the insurance claim for full IDV of the vehicle.  Clearly, the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company is an important factor, which should be taken into consideration while deciding the insurance claim. As observed above, the accident of the vehicle and consequently the vehicle catching fire are the proved facts, respondent/complainant is entitled to insurance claim.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) C.P.J. 9 (S.C.), has observed:

“14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non-standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below:-

 9.     Relying upon the above guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is seen that in the present matter one of the policy conditions has been clearly violated and that being an important condition, I deem it appropriate to allow the insurance claim @60% of the IDV of the vehicle.

10.    On the basis of the above discussion, the first appeal No.797 of 2015 is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that instead of full IDV Rs.13,50,000/-, the appellant Company shall be liable to pay 60% of the IDV  i.e. Rs.8,10,000/- (rupees eight lakh ten thousand only).  This amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company along with 7% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint.  The litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the State Commission is maintained.  The appellant is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of service/receipt of this order.