(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, thereby dismissing her consumer complaint No. 63 of 2010.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle No. UA07-S-2924 (Indica car), which was insured with the opposite party No. 1 – The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 09.02.2008 to 08.02.2009  at an IDV of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  The said car was financed by the opposite party No. 2 – Tata Motors Finance Limited.  On 04.07.2008, Dr. Pritam Singh, the neighbourer of the complainant had taken the insured vehicle from the complainant.  When the vehicle was not returned by him, the complainant lodged an FIR with the P.S. Raipur, Dehradun against Dr. Pritam Singh on 24.07.2008 and a case was registered against him under Section 406 IPC bearing case crime No. 93 of 2008, but neither Dr. Pritam Singh could be found, nor the vehicle could be recovered.  It was alleged that the complainant is an illiterate lady and, as such, she did not have any knowledge that the insurance company is also to be informed about the theft of the insured vehicle.  The complainant informed the insurance company about the incident on 27.05.2009.  The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, but the same was not settled by the insurance company.  Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.  

3.       The opposite party No. 1 – insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the complainant neither immediately lodged the FIR with the police in regard to the theft of the insured vehicle, nor informed the insurance company; that the incident of theft took place on 04.07.2008, whereas the insurance company was informed for the first time on 27.05.2009, after a period of 10 months’; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The opposite party No. 2 – financier filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

5.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 23.01.2013.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.      

6.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.   

7.       There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the insured vehicle was taken away on 04.07.2008.  The FIR with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle was lodged by the complainant with the P.S. Raipur, Dehradun on 24.07.2008 (Paper Nos. 22 and 23) and a case was registered by the police under Section 406 IPC.  There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the intimation with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle was given by the complainant to the insurance company for the first time vide letter dated 26.05.2009 (Paper No. 24), which was received by the insurance company on 27.05.2009 and prior to the said date, the insurance company had no knowledge with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle.

8.       From the perusal of the consumer complaint, it is evident that the complainant had voluntarily given the insured vehicle to her neighbourer Dr. Pritam Singh, who had run away with the vehicle and did not return the same.  The police has also registered the case under Section 406 IPC, i.e., criminal breach of trust and no theft case was registered.  However, one thing is clear that there has been undue delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle as well as giving intimation to the insurance company. 

9.       Learned counsel for the insurance company pressed into service a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane; IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC).  In the said case, there was delay in sending information of theft to the insurance company.  It was held that the delay of 9 days to inform the insurer would be a violation of condition of policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to trace / help in tracing the vehicle.  It was also held that the claim was not payable.  Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Prahlad and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; IV (2012) CPJ 770 (NC).  In the said case, the vehicle was taken away forcibly.  There was delay of 4 days in lodging FIR.  It was held that the delay in lodging report casts doubt over bonafides of complainant.  The insurance company was informed after about 2 months from the date of incident.  It was held that the intimation should have been given immediately and the repudiation of the claim was held to be justified.  Learned counsel cited further decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pankaj Kapoor and others; II (2013) CPJ 406 (NC), wherein it was held that not informing insurance company immediately after theft deprives insurance company of its legitimate right to investigate the matter and such delay is fatal to claim.  Learned counsel cited one more decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ram Avtar; I (2014) CPJ 29 (NC).  In the said case, the FIR was lodged with police on the same date of theft, but the information in writing was conveyed to the insurance company 35 days after the theft of vehicle.  It was held that the insured was required to immediately inform the insurance company about the theft and the repudiation of the claim was justified.

10.     Learned counsel for the appellant – complainant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Chhotanagpur Adivasi Cooperative Vegetable Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others; II (2013) CPJ 18 (NC), wherein it was held that the question of good faith arises only when party is aware of terms.  In the present case, the complainant has stated that she was not aware that intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle is also to be given to the insurance company.  The said contention of the complainant is quite funny.  The claim is to be lodged with the insurance company.  It is the insurance company who has to investigate the matter and thereafter settle the claim, but the complainant did not know that the insurance company has to be informed.  The complainant has nowhere stated that she was not supplied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Charan Dass; IV (2012) CPJ 216 (NC).  In the said case, it was not proved that the insurance policy was sent to the insured.  There is no such case of the complainant in the matter in issue that she was not supplied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The other case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant – complainant pertain to coverage of claim even if a case is registered under Section 406 IPC, which are not at all relevant for the disposal of the present appeal.

11.     The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference and the appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

12.     For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

            (D.K. TYAGI)                                            (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K