JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background in brief is that the Complainant purchased a Tata Truck with registration No. RJ 05 GA 7343 and insured it with the Respondents for the period from 24.03.2013 to 23.03.2014, with an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 18,51,294/-, paying a premium of Rs. 45,400/-. On 13.12.2013, the Complainant parked the vehicle safely at his relative Majeed's house in Village Kulwana, Police Station Kaithwada, Thesil Kaman, District Bharatpur, around 9.00 pm. However, the next day at about 5 am, the Complainant discovered that the vehicle was missing from the spot. He promptly informed the Kaithwara Police Station about the theft, but they initially refused to register the complaint, and asked him to search for the vehicle himself. After several days of unsuccessful search and refusal of the Police to register the complaint, the Complainant submitted an Affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate, Kaman, on 19.12.2013, urging for an order to register the complaint. Subsequently, FIR No. 13/2014 dated 09.01.2014 was registered in Kaithwara Police Station. The Complainant then informed the Respondents about the theft, and they appointed Mr. Laxmandas Arora as the Surveyor to investigate authenticity of the incident. The Surveyor requested information from the Complainant on 16.02.2014, which was provided promptly. However, after about eight months, the Surveyor requested the same information again on 24.10.2014, without submitting the Surveyor's Report until 28.11.2014. Despite repeated correspondence and submission of required information, the Respondent repudiated the Complainant's claim on 03.11.2016, citing delay in intimation to the Insurance Company and in registering the FIR. Aggrieved by the claim's repudiation, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Bharatpur.

 3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 14.03.2022 dismissed the complaint. The Petitioner/Complainant then filed Appeal against the Order in the 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 –

“21. …………Therefore, according to the principles enunciated in the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.", 'Jaina Construction Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." and "Dharmendra Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd." (all the three mentioned above), delayed reporting to insurance company cannot be made a ground for repudiation of claim, unless the theft is considered to be suspicious, that is if the stolen list is accepted as genuine, then delayed notification to the insurance company cannot be made a ground for repudiation. 

 

22. It is also worth mentioning here that in the repudiation letter dated dated 03.11.2016 by the respondent opponents insurance company, reference has been made to the judicial decision of the Hon' ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jain and this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been observed in "Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd." (supra) and in the case of theft of an insured vehicle, the principle has been propounded that if information is given to the police immediately after the incident or within a reasonable time, then mere delay in intimation to the insurance company cannot be made a ground for rejection of the claim. Therefore, the above judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were later referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as "Jaina Construction Co. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." and "Dharmendra Vs. "United India Insurance Company Limited", the order of rejection of claim dated 03. 11.2016 is not justified. 

 

24. As far as relief is concerned, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited on behalf of the appellant-complainant "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal Manu / SC / 7639/2008 and "Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited MANU/ SC/ 7639/2008'' in case of violation of the condition of giving timely information to the company, the claim of the appellant- complainant is considered to be payable on Non-Standard  Basis  and  not  fully  payable.   Accordingly,   75 percent of the IDV 18,51,294 /- shown in the insurance policy of the appellant-complainant Rs.13,88,470.50  Rounded off Rs.13,88,470/- with interest from the respondent-opponent insurance company. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it appropriate to grant any relief on any other count. 

 

ORDER

The appeal presented by the appellant­ complainant Yunus against the respondent opponents National Insurance Company Limited is accepted and the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bharatpur in complaint case no. 436/2016 is being set aside, it is ordered that:­ 

1.Respondents - Insurance Company shall pay an amount of Rs. 13,88,470 /- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy) to the Appellant with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e 03.11.2016 to be paid within two months from the date of order.……..”

 

4. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. Appearance had initially been put in on behalf of the Respondent/Insurance Company, However, no Written Synopsis from its side was filed, nor anyone appeared on its behalf on the date of Final Hearing i.e. 1.5.2024, on account of which the matter was reserved for orders after hearing Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant.

6. His grievance is limited only to two small issues.  Firstly, he is aggrieved that vide the impugned Order, the Ld. State Commission had directed payment of interest on the compensation awarded to him from the date of repudiation of his claim by the Respondent/ Insurance Company. He is also aggrieved that no additional compensation for harassment or any litigation costs were awarded to him. Considered;

7. Admittedly, the Claim was repudiated by the Respondent/Insurance Company on 3.11.206 which was nearly 3 years after theft of the Petitioner’s insured vehicle. However, it is a matter of record that the Final Report of the Police after investigating the FIR got lodged at the instance of the Petitioner was itself submitted two years later on 8.2.2015, after which the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company also accepted that the theft was genuine and that  the Claim should be settled.

8. The Insurance Company thereafter took nearly 10 months to repudiate the Claim constraining the Petitioner to file his Complaint in the District Forum, which however dismissed the same. But such Order was set aside by the Ld. State Commission which found merit in the Petitioner’s Complaint, and consequently allowed the Appeal.  In the totality of the circumstances therefore, this Commission is of the view that inordinate delay on the part of the Insurance Company in taking a decision on the Final Report of its own Investigator which was subsequently set aside by the Ld. State Commission does give rise to a genuine grievance qua the Complaint.

9. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed after modifying the impugned Order to the extent that the interest @ 9% p.a. awarded to the Petitioner shall start to run from two months after the Final Report of the Investigator dated 9.1.2016, instead of from 3.11.2016, which was the date of repudiation of the Insurance Claim by the Respondent.

10. In addition, litigation costs quantified at Rs. 40,000/- are also awarded to the Petitioner.

11. The Respondents are now directed to make the requisite payment to the Petitioner within two months from the date of this Order. Any delay in making such payment shall result in enhancement of interest @12% till realisation. 

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