1.       The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 26.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 89 of 2016 inter alia praying for quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Appellant was the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant/Complainant), the Respondent was Opposite Party (OP) (hereinafter referred to as Respondent/OP) in the said CC 89/2016 before the State Commission.  Notice was issued to the Respondent on 26.10.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 05.12.2019 and 28.08.2020 respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that the Appellant/complainant purchased an insurance policy, for Rs. 50,453/-, from the Respondent/OP for his vehicle No. RJ 40 GA 0481 on 12.06.2014. The vehicle was stolen on 12.01.2015. Driver intimated the P.S. Kasola, Distt. Rewari on 14.01.2015 and the Appellant/complainant also informed the Insurance Company regarding the theft of vehicle on 21.01.2015. On 03.07.2015, the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class: DSP City, Rewari, passed an order of untraceable vehicle. The Appellant/Complainant filed complaint before the State Commission on 22.07.2016. Vide Order dated 26.09.2017, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint of Appellant-Complainant seeking inter alia Rs. 24 lakhs from Respondent-Opp. Party/Insurance Company towards claim for the stolen vehicle covered under the policy on the ground of lack of reasonable care on the part of the Petitioner against the insured vehicle.

4.      Appellant/Complainant has challenged the Order dated 26.09.2017 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

(i)      The State Commission has not considered the fact that the Petitioner’s vehicle was stolen on 12.01.2015 and also stated that as he went to attend the nature’s call so he was not expected to carry key of the vehicle with him while getting down from the Vehicle and the vehicle was within his sight, which was not too far. When driver came back at the place where he lastly left the vehicle, the vehicle was not found there.

(ii)     The State Commission has not considered the fact that the swift action taken by the driver to search for the vehicle and also intimate the nearest police station without any delay with no signs carelessness or negligence.

(iii)    The State Commission wrongly dismissed the complaint in a way encouraging such an obnoxious and whimsical behaviour of the Respondent/Insurance Company.

(iv)    The State Commission has not considered the fact that an Appeal is a legal right of the parties and such orders act as a deterrent to avail such right.

5.       Heard counsels of both sides. IA No. 19648/2017 seeking Condonation of Delay of 42 days in filing the FA is allowed. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, based on their FA/Reply, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

5.1.    Respondent-Opposite Party has argued that:-

(a)      Vehicle in question was stolen on 12.01.2015. The intimation to the Police was given on 14.01.2015 i.e. after two (02) days and the FIR was registered on the same date. Intimation/information to the Respondent/Company was given only on 21.01.2015 i.e, after nine (09) days of the theft of the vehicle. There is no explanation or justification, or a cogent reason offered for intimating the Respondent Company after an inordinate delay of nine (09) days from the theft of the vehicle in question. In terms of the policy, Appellant was duty bound to inform it in writing (and not orally) about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. As such there is a deliberate breach of the policy condition by the Appellant. On account of delayed intimation, the Respondent was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.

(b)     The vehicle in question was left unattended on the road at night, and the driver and the conductor of the vehicle, while leaving the keys of the vehicle inside it had gone into the fields to ease themselves to a point from where they had lost sight of the vehicle. Thus, they had failed to exercise due care of the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy, where they were bound to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss/damage.

(c)      Impugned order has been passed on 26.09.2017 and the present appeal has been filed belatedly on 07.12.2017. No valid reasons for delay have been given.

(d)     Appellant being in transport business and being the registered owner of a 12-wheeler truck in question can by no stretch of imagination, be a poor person. Respondent-Opp. Party has placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and NCDRC in support of its contentions.

5.2   Appellant-Complainant on the other hand argued that the State Commission dismissed it wrongly on grounds of lack of reasonable steps taken by the claimant to safeguard the said stolen vehicle and that the information of the stolen vehicle was not given by the Complainant on time. No Negligence can be pinned on the Complainants as he had taken due safety precautions and at the same time his actions does not amount to negligence as he went to attend the nature’s call over which he had no control, he did not take the keys of the vehicle with him since he did not go too far and the same cannot be used as a ground by the Insurance company to take no decision about the Insurance Claim. State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of breach of conditions of policy committed by the petitioner without any negligence been committed by the Complainant.

6.       The Respondent/OP’s main contention has been delay in intimation to police (2 days) and to Respondent/OP (9 days) from the date of theft.  The theft happened in the mid-night of 12.01.2015 – 13.01.2015 and FIR was registered on 14.01.2015.  Intimation to Respondent/OP was given on 21.01.2015.  In this background, it is to be seen that under IRDA- (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations, 2002, Surveyor is supposed to submit his report within a maximum of 6 months and Insurance Company is supposed to take decision on the claim within 30 days of receipt of Surveyor’s report.  However, they did not take any decision for one and half years forcing the Appellant/complainant to file complaint before the State Commission on 22.07.2016.  Interestingly, neither during the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission or thereafter, till date, Respondent/OP Insurance Company has not placed on record any repudiation letter. Accordingly, while reserving the judgment after hearing the parties on 08.05.2023, Respondent/OP was instructed to produce copy of any such repudiation letter, if any, within one week, otherwise, it will  be presumed that no such formal repudiation order has been issued by the Respondent/OP.  Till the date of pronouncing the judgment, Respondent/OP did not file any such repudiation letter.  Hence, Respondent/OP who itself has not followed the statutory timelines of processing and deciding the claim, is not justified in objecting the claim merely on grounds of delay of two days in intimating the Police (rather less than 2 days as incident happened on the midnight of 12^th & 13^th January 2015) and 9 days in informing the Respondent/OP.  In fact the State Commission in its order has recorded that:-

“It has been the statement of the complainant that he had given the information of the incident on 13th January, 2015 itself to the Police chowki Gadhi Bolni and in this connection document Exhibit-3 has been produced. It is the statement of the Opposite Party that there is no dispatch number of this, in such a situation no reliance can be placed on this. No mention of this has been made in the Complaint that information may have been given at Boleni Police chowki but mention has been made of getting the report registered at the concerned Police station and the First Information Report Exhibit-4 dated 14 January 2015 has been got registered, there is no dispute in this but there is no reason not to believe on Exhibit-3 because it is certified by P.S. Kasaula therefore this position is clear that the information of the theft had already been got registered on 13.01.2015 itself. But this position is also indisputable that the information was given to the Insurance Company on 21st January 2015.”

As regards delay in intimation to Respondent/OP, on 21.01.2015, Appellant/complainant stated before the State Commission that information was given to Insurance company on its toll free number, but Respondent/OP contended that oral information cannot be accepted.  Parties relied upon various judgments in support of their contentions before the State Commission.  Keeping in view the entirety of facts of the case, we find it a fit case where delay on the part of Appellant/complainant in intimating the police and informing the incident to Respondent/OP can be condoned. 

7.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the FA is allowed, orders dated 26.09.2017 of State Commission is set aside and case is remanded back to Respondent/OP Insurance Company for processing/re-consideration on merits.  The Respondent/OP shall take a final decision in the case within a maximum of two months.  Respondent/OP shall be free to seek additional details/documents from the Appellant/complainant, if required, for which it shall issue a communication to Appellant/complainant within 15 days of this order. Respondent/OP shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to Appellant/complainant before taking a final decision. 

8.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.