Delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

-2-

Complainant/petitioner got his truck bearing registration No.HR-69/0535 insured with the respondent insurance company on 29.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.4 Lac.  On the intervening night of 16/17.01.2008 the truck was stolen by some unknown person.  FIR No.28 dated 30.01.2008 was lodged with the Police Station City, Gohana under Section 379 I.P.C.  Intimation regarding the theft was sent to the respondent insurance company on 12.02.2008.  During the investigations conducted by the surveyor and loss assessor of the Insurance Company it was revealed that the route permit of the truck was valid upto 11.11.2004 and, thereafter, the Complainant did not get the route permit renewed.  Respondent insurance company repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the truck was not having valid permit to operate as well as due to delayed intimation about the theft in violation of the condition of the policy.   Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay Rs.4 Lac along with interest      @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft of the truck in question till its actual

-3-

realization and further, to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for rendering deficient services.  Another sum of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded towards costs of litigation.

Respondent insurance company being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.  It was held that the delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and the delay of               29 days in giving information to the insurance company which was in violation of terms of the policy, was fatal to the claim and that the respondent insurance company was justified in repudiating the same.

We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  The truck was stolen on the intervening night of 16/17.01.2008 whereas the respondent insurance company was informed about the same on 12.02.2008, i.e., after a delay of 29 days.  In terms of the policy issued by the respondent insurance company, petitioner was bound to inform the respondent insurance company about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  On account of ‘delayed intimation’, respondent insurance company was deprived of

-4-

its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the matter and make an endeavor to recover the vehicle.  Supreme Court of India in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010” has held that not informing the insurance company immediately after the theft deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft and make an endeavor to recover the same and as such, the delay is fatal to the claim.  Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra) read as under:

          “Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager.  In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation.  Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to

-5-

the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident.  In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.  Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis.  In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”

-6-

             Respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pravesh Chander Chadha’s case (supra), we find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.