Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Dr. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                          

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Instant complaint  is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  by complainant Sh. Sandeep Verman against OP national Insurance Company seeking direction to the OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- being value of the stolen vehicle and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs 1,00,000/- as “punitive damages” inter-alia  praying therein that complainant had purchased car insurance policy bearing no. 361503/31/14/6100001603 from OP. Further it is stated that on 09.02.2015 at about 8.30 PM the vehicle was parked near the residence of the complainant and when he came back he was shocked to see that the car was missing from the spot. Accordingly he lodged an FIR at Safdarjung Enclave Police Station vide FIR no. 154 of 2015. He informed the OP about the theft of the vehicle on 11.04.2015 by way of an e-mail. On 15.05.2015 he again wrote to the OP that the police had issued untraceable report and requested the OP to depute a surveyor to settle the claim of the complainant. It is further stated that vide letter dated 29.05.2015  OP alleged violation of  the terms  of the policy of insurance policy on the part of the complainant.
2. The claim was vehemently opposed by OP vide its reply wherein it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant is pending before insurance ombudsman who is competent to resolve disputes relating to the insurance matters  and as such the instant complaint be dismissed. Further it is stated that the   adjudication of the claim requires elaborate documentary evidence and cross examination of the witnesses and therefore  only Civil Court is competent to adjudicate the instant claim. On merits, it is stated that the theft of the vehicle took place on 09.02.2015 whereas  the OP was informed about the theft after a delay of 62 days on 11.04.2015.  As a result whereof the investigator of OP could not investigate the matter immediately which has adversely affected the interest of OP company.
3. We have heard submissions of Mr. Nishant Kaushik learned counsel for the complainant.
4. No elaborate evidence  or examination  of witnesses is required to adjudicate the claim of the complainant.  As such this forum is competent to adjudicate the instant complaint and accordingly the objection of the OP that only Civil Court is  competent to adjudicate the matter is overruled.
5.  Another objection of the OP is that since the matter is already pending before the insurance ombudsman this forum cannot proceed with the matter. The said objection is also overruled in view of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which clearly provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
6. Now coming to the  core question as to  how far delay in intimation of the theft of the  insured vehicle to the insurer is relevant. Complainant has referred to Omprakash Vs Reliance General Insurance Civil Appeal No. 15611/2011 arising out of SLP (C ) No. 742 of 2015 dated 04.10.2017  wherein there was delay of 8 days in intimating  the insurer about the  theft of the insured vehicle qua which the Apex court observed that if the reason for delay in making the claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. 
7. Per contra  there are judgments which are to the effect that theft of stolen insured vehicle has to be immediately intimated to the insurer to enable  the insurer to make efforts to trace the insured vehicle.
8. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parvesh Chander Chadha Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 there was a delay of 5 months in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.08.2010 observed:

"Admittedly, the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle the claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."

9. In  New India Assurance Company Vs Trilochan Jane First Appeal no. 321 of 2005  the  Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 09.12.2009 observed that :

“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      *        *         * 

In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi (scrap dealer).”

10.   Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 16.10.2014  in United India Insurance Company Vs Jogender Singh (Revision Petition no 3047 of 2011)  following the verdict in Trilochan Jane (supra) observed that intimation regarding theft was given by the complainant after 12 days from the date of incident and as such there being violation of the terms and conditions of the policy the claim was disallowed.
11.   Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Vs Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 held that delay in informing insurance company was fatal as it deprived insurance company of its legitimate right to inquire into theft. Hence repudiation of claim was held to be justified.
12.  In New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Shri Pankaj Kapoor First Appeal No. 206 of 2007 vide its order dated 04.03.2013  the Hon’ble NCDRC observed that insured was required to inform the Insurance Company about the theft immediately to enable about the theft as well as to trace the property so delay in intimation amounts to breach of the condition of the Insurance Policy and as such repudiation of the claim is totally justified.
13.  Honble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that :

“The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it….                  

Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 an insurance was taken out under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which their Lordships' observed :

"The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy."

Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract has to be read strictly. It was observed, " In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”

14. The facts of the case of Om  Prakash (supra) , relied  upon by the complainant ,are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case.  In the cited case of Om Prakash (supra) the delay in intimation of stolen insured vehicle to the insurer was reasonably and satisfactorily  explained by the complainant and the delay was only of 8 days. In the cited case the owner of the truck in question was resident of Haryana and theft of insured vehicle had taken place at Rajasthan. FIR was lodged at Rajasthan. The truck driver had filed an affidavit before the District Forum stating that the owner of the truck had reached the place of occurrence of theft and met him and also the concerned police officials. The Police had asked him and the owner to stay with them in order to help them for tracing out the truck. The police had also asked them to collect necessary documents in relation to the said truck . They were, consequently, busy with the Rajasthan Police in searching the vehicle. They visited many places in Rajasthan. The police had compelled the appellant to accompany them while searching the truck and it was  only on 29.03.2010 that  the appellant went back and reached his village on 30.03.2010. The appellant had also filed a similar affidavit before the State Commission explaining the reasons for the delay in informing theft of the vehicle.  More over in the cited case investigator appointed by the OP had verified the factum of theft and the Corporate Claims Manager had  approved the report of the investigator thereby recommending payment of Rs. 7,85,000/- towards the claim. 
15. In the instant case there is an unexplained delay of 62 days in intimation of theft  of the insured vehicle. In para 8 page 3 of the complaint complainant has stated that he was not aware of any time frame within which he had to inform the insurer company about the theft of the stolen vehicle. It is also stated that the time frame was either  not explained to him or “perhaps it was overlooked”.  Complainant cannot feign ignorance of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which are binding on him and which have the effect of fixing liability on the insurer to pay compensation on accrual of cause of action.
16. In view of the above observations the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.