ORDER

23.01.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna (Member)

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the owner of one vehicle bearing registration no. HR-46B-8066 which has been insured by the OP1 through OP2 vide its policy/cover note no.10828 dated 27.7.2002 which was valid w.e.f 27.7.2007 to 26.7.2008. The vehicle of the complainant is also financed from the OP No.3. It is stated that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person on 12.5.2008. The driver of the complainant Satbir singh S/o Ishwar Singh parked the vehicle bearing regd. No. HR-46B-8066 in front of CW-224-225 Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Delhi in the night of 11.5.2008 at about 11 p.m. In the morning on 12.5.2008 when the driver go for the natural call by leaving the vehicle parked at the place as mentioned above and at about 8 a.m in the morning came back at the spot, it was shocking for the driver of the complainant that the above said vehicle was not there.
2. It is stated that the driver of the vehicle tried to find out the same but it was not traced out, thereafter the driver of the complainant informed about the incident on telephone then complainant told him to immediately inform the police station. It is stated that duty officer at police station refused the enter the substance of the information of driver in their record on the pretext that vehicle is financed and there is possibility that vehicle was taken by bank officials. It is further stated that complainant tried to contact bank officials and some time to contact the police officials to lodge the complaint but has no information who had taken the vehicle from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Delhi. It is stated that complainant immediately intimated to the officials of insurance company with regard to the theft of the vehicle. On the great persuasion of the complainant FIR no.211/2008 under section 379 IPC registered at police station Samaypur Badli.
3. It is stated that complainant had submitted all the required documents with the insurance company as per their direction but till date complainant is not having any information about his insurance claim. It is further stated that the surveyor of insurance company i.e M/s Royal Assocites Add. SCF No.132 first floor, sector 13 market urban estate, kurukshetra Haryana who had thoroughly examined the case and submitted the report with insurance company. It is further stated that the vehicle was financed from OP3 and duly insured but due to negligent attitude of OP1 and OP2 the complainant has been harassed and OP3 had charging the interest on the financed amount.
4. It is stated that police officials of police station filed an untraced report in the court of Sh.Sudhanshu Kaushik, MM and same was accepted vide order dated 17.03.2009. It is further stated that OP1 and OP2 were requested time and again for grant of compensation on account of loss suffered by complainant due to theft of the vehicle. The act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and due to illegal and wrong act of OP1 complainant has suffered a great loss and suffered harassment, mental pain and agony.
5. The complainant is seeking direction be issued to OP to settle the claim case and make payment of the compensation, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and deficiency of service alongwith interest @ 24% any other order which deems fit and proper.
6. Notice of the complaint was sent to all the OPs. OP-3 chosen not to contest the complaint. OP-1 & 2 filed their joint written statement thereby denying the allegations in the complaint. OP-1 and 2 filed detailed reply and taken preliminary objections. It is stated that present complaint involves disputed question of facts which requires detailed oral and documentary evidence, therefore, it falls within the domain of civil court. It is stated that complaint does not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of OP1and OP2, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7. OP1 and 2 made detailed preliminary submissions. It is stated that an insurance policy/cover note bearing no.2008/3993 issued to complainant effective from 27.07.2007 to 26.07.2008 and insurance was granted to vehicle bearing registration no. HR-46B-8066 subject to usual terms and conditions for a sum of Rs.11,87,500/-. It is further stated that insurance was granted subject to standard terms and conditions which are applicable to motor vehicle insurance policy. It is stated that an insured is required to give intimation of theft of the vehicle immediately after theft took place to the police authorities as well as to the insurance company.
8. It is stated that theft of the vehicle took place on 12.05.2008 but intimation of theft was given to police on 23.05.2008 an FIR lodged after a delay of 11 days. On receiving the delayed information from complainant surveyor M/s Royal Associates appointed to investigate the matter. The investigator submitted their report. In the report it is stated that “…….the insured was asked to provide copy of purchase invoice, copy of latest service record, copies of latest four five GRs through which truck was operated, copy of route permit but he has not provided. We have written letters to insured, but he has not responded, these documents are required  for investigation. Insured even also did not disclose address from where last time sand was loaded in truck and unloaded from truck. So latest condition of truck is not known…….”.
9. It is stated that as per policy condition an insured is required to cooperate with the investigator and submit all information and documents but the insured did not give the required information and documents as such the claim lodged by complainant is not payable. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
10. The complainant did not filed rejoinder to WS of OP1 and OP2.
11. The complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on copy of FIR Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance cover note Ex.CW1/B, copy of untraced report Ex.CW1/C and copy of permit Ex.CW1/D.
12. OP failed to file evidence despite ample opportunities. Vide order dated 10.09.2018 OP evidence stands closed.
13. Complainant filed written arguments and OP1 and OP2 also filed written arguments.
14. We have heard Ms. Suman Jain counsel for complainant. Neither OP1 and OP2 counsel appeared nor addressed the argument despite giving ample opportunities.

15     It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant Ms. Suman Jain  that once OP-1 & 2 admitted the policy in question and further admit that the theft took place within the period of insurance policy in question as such the repudiation of the claim by OP Ins. Co. is arbitrarily and unjustified. She further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case titled as “ OM Prakash Vs. Reliance Gen. Insurance” in which it is specifically held that delay in intimation is not a good ground to repudiate the insurance claim where the insurance claim is otherwise genuine. 

16.    The judgment cited by Ld. Counsel for complainant is distinguishable one. Admittedly, there is a delay of 11 days in intimating to the police as well as to the insurance company and the delay has not been justified by the complainant in its complaint. Further in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 15611/2017 titled as “ OM Prakash Vs. Reliance Gen. Insurance”, there is no delay on the part of insured in informing the police in respect to the theft of the vehicle. Hence, the judgment cited by Ld. Counsel for complainant is not at all applicable in the present complaint case.

17.     The delay in providing information of theft of the vehicle to the police as well as insurance company has been examined by various higher authorities.

18.     The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi discussed the matter of delay in lodging the FIR of the theft of the vehicle and also the delay in reporting such theft to the insurance company in the case reported as III (2003) CPJ 77; Devender Singh Vs.  National Insurance Company   Ltd. & Others.  The matter was again examined by the Hon’ble National Commission in its order, dated 09.12.2009, passed in FA No.231/05; New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane.  In both the cases, the incident of theft of the vehicle was intimated to the insurance company after some period.  In FA No.231/05, the Hon’ble Commission has held that information of loss of the vehicle should be intimated to the insurance company immediately. The delay in lodging the FIR to the police regarding the theft in vehicle, could be fatal to the investigation, as in the mean time the car could have travel to long distance or may have been dismantaled by that time and sold to scrap dealer. The word  ‘immediately’ in the context of reporting the theft of the vehicle to the police, has been held to be 24 hours and in  context of information to the insurance company, it should not be more than one or two days,.  It is so because; the insurer is to verify as to whether any theft of the vehicle had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced out.  If it is not done so then it amounts violation of the term and condition of the policy.

19.     In the present case, the vehicle was got stolen on  12.05.2008,  FIR was lodged with the P.S. Samaypur Badli on 23.05.2008, an intimation of theft was not given to OP Insurance Co. immediately as required as per policy terms and conditions. The complainant had failed to place on record any documentary evidence regarding immediate intimation of theft to OP Ins. Co. which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions.    The insurance company has been deprived off to make efforts to trace out the insured vehicle.

20.     The OP Ins. Co. close the claim of the complainant on two grounds, firstly the delay in intimation and secondly on non submission of requisite documents.

21.     Considering the law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find that the complainant did not act as per term and condition of the policy and had not immediately reported the incident of theft of the vehicle to the insurer as well as to the police. Moreover, the complainant had not provided any justified ground for non submission of the requisite documents. Hence, we are of the considered view that OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. No case of deficiency in service as alleged can be made out qua OP. We find no merits in this complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  23.01.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                     RAJESH      

PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                  MEMBER