JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background is that the Complainant owns a Tata Ex-2515 Truck with registration number MH-29-T-0676, which was insured with the Respondents from 08.05.2013 to 07.05.2014, for a premium of Rs. 28,206/-. Possessing a valid driving license, the Complainant was transporting household luggage from Bhokar to Shewala, Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli on 02.04.2014. After unloading the truck at Shewala, he was returning towards his village but felt unwell suddenly at Village Koli, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded. Turning off the truck, he secured it, parked it at Koli Bus Stand, and sought medical treatment in Hadgaon, leaving the truck locked. Upon returning the next day to retrieve the truck, he found it missing. Despite filing complaints with the Hadgaon Police Station and Sub Divisional Superintendent of Police, Bhokar, no action was taken until the Police were directed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) of Hadgaon to register the offence under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and investigate the same. Subsequently, FIR No. 32/14 was registered for theft under Section 379 of IPC. The Complainant then approached the Respondents on 01.05.2014 to claim insurance, cooperating with the surveyor by signing claim forms and various blank papers, but the claim was repudiated without any valid reason on 15.09.2014. Displeased with the wrongful repudiation, the Complainant initiated proceedings before the Ld. District Forum, Nanded.

 3. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 23.12.2016 partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the IDV amount of Rs. 6,80,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation costs. The Respondent filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 17.07.2017 allowed the Appeal, set-aside the Order of the Ld. District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – 

“6. We thus heard Adv. Dahat and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that, complainant had obtained the policy in respect of his vehicle. It is an admitted fact that vehicle was stolen by unknown persons on 02.04.2014. It is also an admitted fact that complainant first time filed the claim on 01.05.2014 i.e. near about after one month and gave intimation about theft of vehicle to the insurance company first time.

7. In our view, the terms and conditions are supplied to the policy (holder with the policy, and therefore he is under obligation to comply the said condition. In the event of theft complainant is to approach insurance company immediately by issuing the notice so that insurance company can investigate in the matter. Their officers also can help in searching and tracing out the vehicle stolen. Therefore the due observance and fulfilment of the condition is obligatory on the part of policy holder. But in the present case it is seen that vehicle was stolen on 02.04.2014 but intimation of theft was given to insurance company near about after a month. In our view, there is a breach of terms and conditions by the policy holder. Therefore he is not entitled to claim any amount in respect of theft of his vehicle.

8. Dist. Consumer Forum by ignoring the settled position of law and evidence brought before it by the appellant insurance company partly allowed the complaint and committed illegality. Hence said order is required to be quashed and set aside. The authority cited by Adv. Dahat is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore order passed by Dist.Consumer Forum is required to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass following order.

ORDER

 

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment and order passed by Dist.Consumer Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed.

4. No order as to cost.”

 

4. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. State Commission, the Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition raising the following issues – 

b. That the State Commission, instead of verifying the accuracy of the notice service to the Petitioner, erroneously deemed it as "deemed service" and proceeded with the Appeal without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard, thereby causing grave injustice;

c. That the District Forum correctly noted in Paragraph No. 6 of its Order that the Petitioner had presented both keys of the cabin door before the District Forum, to which the Respondents did not offer any rebuttal. Hence, the assertion of the Respondents that the Petitioner neglected to take proper care of the truck is unsubstantiated.

5. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that the impugned Order contradicts established legal precedents, as elucidated in cases such as "Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2020) 11 SCC 612", "Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 527" and "Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587". According to settled law, the duty of the insured individuals is to promptly notify the Police authorities, and a mere delay in informing the insurance company about the theft incident cannot justify the denial of the claim; That the Respondent's defence of 'negligence' was rightly not accepted in by the Ld. District Forum's Order, which the Respondents did not contest at that stage. Furthermore, the State Commission had erred in presuming due service and proceeding with the appeal ex-parte, although the Petitioner had never received, nor ever refused to accept the Notice, as alleged.

6.  Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has argued that the Petitioner's attempt to justify the delay in lodging the FIR by citing Police non-cooperation is unfounded. The Condition No. 1 of the Policy stipulates immediate notice to the Police in the event of vehicle theft, and not merely lodging an FIR, thus making the date of notice to the Police crucial. Although the theft occurred on 02.04.2014, the Petitioner only provided written notice to the Police on 07.04.2014, indicating an unjustified delay, in violation of Policy Condition No. 1; That regarding the reliance on the judgment of Gurshinder Singh (supra) by the Petitioner, it actually supports the position of the Respondents, as it underscores the necessity of promptly notifying the Police; That there were no jurisdictional errors or material irregularities in the impugned Order, on account of which, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 

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

8. The petitioner has first of all denied any valid Notice of Appeal ever tendered or served upon him, and has further contended that there was no reason for him to do so, as the Order of the learned District Forum was already in his favour and therefore, as a prudent man, he would never think of not consciously contesting the Appeal and giving a chance to the Opposite Parties to undo the decision already granted in her favour.  In fine, the submission is that he had refused to accept service of Notice was incorrect.

9. This Commission has also noted that the Ld. State Commission had allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint by taking the view that there was an undue in informing the Insurance Company about the theft, and also in reporting the matter to the Police. While the Ld. District Forum had rightly considered the matter and after having taken note of the fact that the FIR was registered at a later stage, since the Police authorities did not take any cognizance on his complaint with the Hadgaon Police Station and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhokar, he was therefore, constrained to approach the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Hadgaon u/s 156(3) Cr.PC, only as a consequence of which the FIR was registered after the Order of the Court. But a careful reading of the impugned Order shows that the Ld. State Commission had at no point whatsoever even considered the contention of the Petitioner/Complainant that the delay in lodging of the FIR was not within his control, as the Police authorities initially refused to take cognizance of his complaint.

10. The Petitioner has also placed a document in form of a Certificate issued by the Police Inspector of PS Hadgaon in which it has been mentioned that the Complainant had initially given a complaint in Nivgan(Ba) Chowki (Outpost) on 3.10.2014, although the FIR was registered very late only after passing of the order by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. Such Certificate filed along with IA No.1414 of 2024 is under initial, seal and signature of the Police Inspector of PS Hadgaon, Distt. Nanded, and this Commission finds no reasons to disbelieve its contents.

11. Regarding delay in informing the Insurance Company, it has been laid down by the Apex Court in “Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shri Ram Chand Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 11 SCC 612”, that delay in informing the Insurance Company is not a valid ground for refusing an insurance claim if there is no delay on the part of the insured to report the theft to the Police authorities.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that the Ld. State Commission acted erroneously in allowing the Appeal ex parte against the Complainant and setting aside the well-reasoned Order of the District Forum.

13. The Revision Petition is therefore, allowed after setting aside the impugned Order and affirming the decision of the Ld.  District Forum.

14. Parties to bear their own costs.

 

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