O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Truck bearing No.HR56-B-5766 which was insured by the O.P-1 valid for the period from 15.05.2006 to 14.05.2007. On 15.08.2006 the said truck was stolen from Village Bawana and the complainant immediately got registered FIR No.341/2006 dated 04.09.2006 under section 379 IPC at P.S. Bawana, Delhi. It is alleged that the original registration certificate, permit, insurance policy covernote and other documents were stolen with the Truck. It is further alleged that both the O.Ps were intimated regarding the theft of the said truck vide letter dated 30.08.2006 sent under registered cover. It is alleged that the complainant applied for insurance claim to O.Ps and produced all the relevant documents which were asked by the O.P along with the copy of FIR. It is further alleged that complainant made several complaints and sent reminders to the O.Ps but all in vain. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the insured amount of the said vehicle and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.Ps appeared and filed their written statement. O.P-1 in its written statement has not disputed that complainant registered owner of the Tata Truck bearing No.HR56-B-5766 which was insured by the O.P-1 valid for the period from 15.05.2006 to 14.05.2007 for a sum of Rs.11,40,000/-. It is alleged that the said policy was issued along with terms and conditions. It is further alleged that the complainant was bound to follow the terms and conditions in order to take benefit of the policy. As per condition No.1 in case of total loss or theft, an intimation of theft of vehicle was required to be given to the insurance company immediately. However, in this case intimation of theft of vehicle was received by the answering O.P on 27.09.2006 in which it has been disclosed by the complainant that his vehicle was stolen on 15.08.2006. Therefore, there was a violation of condition No.1 of the terms and conditions. It is alleged that the FIR in this case was registered on 04.09.2006 i.e. after a gap of 20 days. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. On the other hand O.P-2 in its written statement stated that there is no deficiency in service or carelessness on the part of the above named O.P-2 i.e. Magma Leasing Ltd. In this regard it is submitted that in accordance with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Unity & Trust Vs. CMD, reported in 1991 Vol. (1) CPJ/SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that where there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the O.Ps, then any loss etc., which is caused to the consumer the O.P cannot be held liable for the same. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Admn. Officer has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of the O.P-1 and Sh. Satyender Kumar, Authorized Representative has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P-2 testifying all the facts as stated in their written statements. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. The controversy in this case is as to whether the rejection of claim by the insurance company on the ground of delayed information about theft of the Truck was justified or not. The counsel for the O.P to support the action of O.P for repudiation of claim of the complainant submitted that though the theft of Truck took place on 15.08.2006 but the intimation was given to O.P on 27.09.2006. It has been further stated that the insured informed the Police on 04.09.2006 upon which FIR was registered. It has contended that since insured did not inform either the Police or O.P immediately after theft so the repudiation was justified under condition No.1 of the policy. The counsel for O.P also drew my attention towards case reported as Devender Singh Vs. NIC Vol. III CPJ (2003) 77 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that delay in FIR was fatal to the case of the complainant. He also referred to another case titled as New India Assurance Co. Vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal 321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009 by Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it was held that delay in intimation to the insurance company is the valid ground for the repudiation of the claim. The counsel for the complainant on the other hand submitted that the O.P has admitted that the vehicle was duly insured with it and immediately after the incident the matter was reported to the Police and subsequently to O.P and therefore, the repudiation was not justified.
6. Let us see the law point on the controversy as to during which period after theft of the vehicle the matter ought to be reported to O.P or the Police. In a catena of decisions of various courts it has now been established that upon theft of the vehicle the insured is obliged to inform the Police immediately and also to the insurer so that steps be taken promptly to trace out the stolen vehicle. In Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2014) CPJ 350 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission it was held as under;
“Theft of vehicle-Delay in lodging FIR-Petitioner informed Police three days after theft. Such delay may be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across border of the Country or could have been dismantled and sold to scrap dealer. Petitioner acted against the interest of insurer by taking away its valuable right of conducting its own enquiry as to the theft of the vehicle.”
In another case titled reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under;
“Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about alleged theft. The Consumer Foras omitted to consider this lapse and directed the appellant to settle the claim on non-standard basis.”
The Hon’ble National Commission in Prahlad & Others Vs. OIC IV (2012) CPJ 770 (NC), held as under;
“Vehicle taken away-Delay in intimation-claim repudiated. There is delay of four days in lodging FIR- Delay casts doubt over bonafides of complainant- Insurance Company was informed after two months-Repudiation justified.”
7. Keeping in view the discussion and the law point discussed above it now becomes abundantly clear that the repudiation by the O.P on account of delayed intimation being given to the O.P and to the Police was justified and thus the claim filed by the complainant is rejected.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 3rd day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
