JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the truck bearing No. HR 55 N 4452, which was insured with the Petitioner from 22.04.2015 to 21.04.2016. On 21.10.2015, the truck was stolen from outside the gate of Naglamal Sugar Mill in the area of PS Mundali, Meerut. The same day, the Complainant immediately informed the Petitioner about the theft through their toll-free phone number and also notified the Insurance Agent on 20.10.2015. The Complainant, along with the driver Dharmender Singh, visited PS Mundali, but the Police did not lodge an FIR and instead instructed them to search for the truck themselves. The Complainant made efforts to trace the truck but was unsuccessful. Consequently, on 23.10.2015, the Complainant submitted an application to the SSP Meerut for registering an FIR as the truck could not be found. The FIR was eventually registered on 04.11.2015 against an unknown person. Following the registration of the FIR, the Complainant submitted all requisite documents to the Petitioner, although no acknowledgment receipt was given. The Police later filed a Final Report in the theft case, which the Complainant promptly submitted to the Petitioner through an agent, to claim the insurance amount. Despite 11 months passing, the claim was not processed. The Complainant made several visits to the Petitioner’s office but received no satisfactory response. Notices dated 03.10.2016 and 13.01.2017 were sent to the Petitioner by the Complainant's Advocate via registered post, but there was no reply. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the claim, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Ghaziabad.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 15.03.2018 dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which allowed it and set-aside the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“4. This fact is acceptable by the insurance company that the questioned vehicle was insured. The insurance claim has been negated just on this ground that information about theft of truck was given at belated stage. The complainant has clarified the reason of delay in his complaint. The judicial cognizance of this fact may be taken that the police do not immediately register the complaint of any complainant rather it is being procrastinated. In the present case, it is the averments of the complainant that the police had asked to search the truck, therefore the report was not lodged. Thereafter the complainant wrote letter to SSP and then after the order of SSP the case was registered. After completion investigation, final report has been filed which has been accepted by SCJM-3rd Meerut on dated 12.3.15. Copy of the order is available on record as document No. 38... .Not legible... and since the complainant has given clarification for the delay caused in registration of the case and it has been clearly stated that the day when the complainant visited the police station for registration of the case, but on that day the case was not registered at the police station and according to section 154 Cr.P.C. information was ought to be given immediately to the Superintendent of Police, hence due to this fault, the insurer has stated that 25% amount may be deducted from the insured amount. The insured amount is Rs.1467375/- and after deduction of 25% amount, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs 1100531.25 But the complainant is not entitled to receive the damages caused after the theft alike loss of income, or mental agony Though the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

ORDER

5. The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside. The complaint is allowed in the manner that after deduction of 25% amount from the insured amount of the vehicle No. HR 55 N 4452 the insurance company shall pay the balance amount of Rs 1100531.25 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and shall further pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. No interest shall be payable on this amount.”

 

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Opposite Party has argued that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in "Kanwarjit Singh Kang v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP(C) 6518/2018" it was held that immediate lodging of FIR and cooperation with police is essential in case of theft of a vehicle, and that delay in informing the insurer and the police may lead to the repudiation of the claim. Further, reliance has been placed on the Orders of this Commission in "Pradeep Kumar Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., RP No. 991/2016" and "Rahul Ranka v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No. 3895 of 2017" wherein there was a delay of 7 days and 5 days respectively in lodging the FIR, and it was held that if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, then the insurance company has a right to repudiate the claim of the consumer; That the Complainant chose not to inform the Petitioner immediately, which causes a serious doubt about the occurrence of the theft, as it might not have occurred altogether and the precious right of the Petitioner and the Police to investigate the manner of theft or to gather any information to substantiate the theft was lost; That the State Commission has not provided any basis for the orders directing payment of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) after deducting 25%, which itself establishes that the fault lies with the Complainant and no party can be allowed to take benefit of its own wrong; That the District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint as there was a delay in informing the Police as well as the Petitioner.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant has argued that the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in "Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and Anr., CA No. 15611 of 2017" held that if the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, then such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay, and that the condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. Further, the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in "Trilok Singh v. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. & Ors., CA No. 4530 of 2023" held that if the FIR of theft is lodged immediately and the claim was submitted to the insurance company after some time, it cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Moreover, in "Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr., SLP(C) No. 24370/2015" the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which have been verified and found to be correct by the investigator on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft; That the Respondent/Complainant has satisfactorily explained the delay in informing the Petitioner/Insurance Company, and the claim has been verified and found correct. Hence, the claim cannot be repudiated solely on the ground of delay. 

6. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

7. It was the grievance of the Complainant in Para 8 of his Complaint that neither the insured amount was paid to him, nor any reply was sent to him towards his Claim and Legal Notice till filing of the Complaint.  As such, clearly there was no formal repudiation of the Insurance Claim by the Petitioner/Insurance Company. It nevertheless resisted the Insurance Claim of the Complainant on the following two grounds - that there was a delay of 16 days in lodging the FIR following theft of the vehicle; and similarly a delay of 18 days in informing about such theft to the Insurance Company.

8. It was however the case of the Complainant all along that he had reported about the theft promptly to the Insurance Company telephonically on its toll free number on the very date of theft itself.  It was also his categorical case that he had also gone to the Police Station to lodge the FIR, but the concerned Police Officers did not register the FIR and in turn asked the Complainant to search for the vehicle at his own level.  He therefore sent an application to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, District Meerut on 23.10.2015 in order to ensure that the FIR gets registered.  As already noted earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent  decision  in  Civil  Appeal  No. 653 of 2020 arising out of “SLP(C )No. 24370 of 2015- Gurshinder Singh  Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.” (supra), has held that where an Insured has lodged the FIR promptly after theft of the vehicle, and where the Claim of the theft is found to be genuine, “mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the Claim of the Insured”.

9. A copy of the application submitted by the Respondent/ Complainant to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 23.10.2015 was filed by him alongwith his Complaint, which is a part of the original case record of the Ld. District Forum.  It was his categorical case that on the date of theft the Police Officers in the concerned Police Station had refused to register his FIR on account of which he had to get the needful done through the intervention of the SSP, Meerut.  This contention of the Respondent certainly carries weight since a bare perusal of the FIR No. 0217 drawn up by the Mundali Police Station on 4.11.2015, itself records that it was started on the basis of the letter addressed by the Complainant to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 23.10.2015. 

10. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Police Officers are reluctant in promptly drawing up the First Information Reports pertaining to the Criminal Offences.  Judicial Notice can be easily taken of such unhealthy practice.  In fact the reason behind the existence of the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the practical recognition that the Police Officers are reluctant to promptly drawn up the FIRs, and avoid doing so in many cases on one pretext or the other.

11.   Consequently, the claim of the Complainant/Respondent that he had gone to the concerned Mudeli, Police Station for lodging his FIR on the date of the theft itself (20/10/2015), but the concerned officer(s) of the Police Station did not start the FIR and instead asked him to search for the missing truck at his own level, cannot be simply brushed aside.  The fact that he thereafter approached the Senior Superintendent of Police shortly after that date, on whose intervention the FIR was ultimately drawn up by the Police Station later on 04.11.2015 does make his case credible in the overall facts and circumstances.  It can therefore not be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the Complainant himself in reporting about the theft of the Insured vehicle to the Police Authorities.  

12. After such FIR had been actually drawn up, the Complainant also informed the Insurance Company about the same, which was in addition to his prompt intimation conveyed on the date of theft itself to the Insurance Company on its toll free phone number.  Consequently  the ratio of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance”, “Trilok Singh Vs. Manager Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company” and “Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited” (Supra), which have been noted in the preceding para nos. 3 & 8 of this Judgment are fully applicable to the present case.

13. This Commission consequently finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned decision of the Ld. State Commission. 

14. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

15. Parties to bear their own costs. 

16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.