PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The petitioner being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the fora below resulting in dismissal of his complaint has preferred this revision petition.

2.   Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner had insured his Bolero SLX 2WD with respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5,51,000/-. The policy non valid for the period from 19.3.2009 to 18.3.2010.  On 31.5.2009, insured vehicle was stolen by the culprit after administering some intoxicant to the petitioner.  At that time, the petitioner was staying at a lodge and the lodge owner admitted the petitioner in the hospital. The case of the petitioner is that after being discharged from the hospital, the petitioner contacted the Manager of respondent no.2, financier and intimated him about the theft.  The insurance claim submitted by the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance contract in failing to intimate the theft within a reasonable period. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner preferred the consumer complaint before District Forum, Una.

3.   District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that because the petitioner had failed to intimate about the theft of the vehicle immediately to the respondent/insurance company, the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim. Hence, the compliant was dismissed.

4.   Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal before Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Camp at Una (in short, “State Commission”). Vide impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

5.   Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that order of the fora below are not sustainable for the reason that the fora below have passed impugned orders in violation of the Circular of IRDA dated 20.9.2011, whereby IRDA has advised thus :-

“The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for affecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc.  However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.

The insurers decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims.  Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry giving rise to excessive litigation.

Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution.  It is also advised that the insurers much not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.”

6.   It is contended that the fora below have failed to appreciate that at the time of theft, the petitioner was administered drug and he was not in conscious state of mind and when he was discharged from the hospital, he approached the Manager of respondent no.2 and intimated the theft to him with a request to convey the information to the insurer.  Therefore, fora below ought to have taken into consideration aforesaid circumstances and the Circular of IRDA allowed the complaint atleast on non-standard basis.  In support of his contention, petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the matter of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. B.Venkatetaswamy decided on 6.2.2014.  In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look on the order of the State Commission.  Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under :-

“6. Learned counsel representing the appellant has tried to convince us that intimation of the loss by theft was given to respondent no.2, the financier, who had loaned money for the purchase of vehicle, immediately after the occurrence and that the said respondent, in turn, informed respondent no.1.  Learned counsel has drawn our attention to para 5 of the complaint, wherein it is stated that respondent no.2, wherein it is stated respondent no.2 had been apprised of the incident of theft immediately.

7.  Before filing the complaint, appellant had served a legal notice upon respondent  no.1. In the notice also not only that he did not mention the date of informing respondent no.2 about the theft, but also did not say that the said respondent had been informed immediately or promptly as is alleged in the complaint. aforesaid legal notice, Annex.C-7, was replied to by respondent no.1, vide Annex.C-9, in which it was specifically stated that intimation of theft had not been received by respondent no.1 on 6.11.2009 through respondent no.2, vide its letter dated 28.10.2009.  It is after receiving this reply from respondent no.1 that the appellant in his complaint, vide para-5, stated that the respondent no.2 had been informed of the accident of theft immediately after it took place. Thus, the plea is nothing but an afterthought.

8.  There are several judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the Hon’ble National Commission that where there is long delay in informing the insurer about the theft, insurer cannot be made liable to indemnify the insured in view of the condition in the policy for prompt intimation of loss by theft. Latest citations are Suraj Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. & Anr., IV(2010) CPJ 38 (SC), National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Satya Dev, II (2011) CPJ 558 and Gyarsi Devi & ORs. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr., IV (2011) CPJ 30 (NC).

9.  Learned counsel representing the appellant has drawn our attention to two precedents of Hon’ble National Commission, which are unreported.  Their particulars are National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mayur Raj Singh, Revision Petition No.3558 of 2012, decided on 1.10.2012 and United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.M/s Durga Carriers (P) Ltd., Revision Petition No.3085 of 2012, decided on 7.11.2012. In both the cases there was delay of only a few days in informing the insurer about the loss of insured, vehicles due to theft and had been satisfactorily explained.  In the present case, there is delay of five months.  In Gyarsi Devi & Ors. (supra), there was delay of two months and the Hon’ble National Commission accepted the insurer’s plea that on account of delay in informing it about the theft, it was not liable to indemnify the insured.”

7.   On reading of the above, we find that admittedly even after regaining consciousness and discharged from the hospital, the petitioner did not bother to intimate the insurance company about the theft. Therefore, we do find any fault in the well-reasoned order of the State Commission.  Similar issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 and the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint of the insured holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  The delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get the investigation in initiated into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same.  It was also held that the company could not be saddled to pay compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the insurance policy.  The relevant observations of the Supreme Court 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 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 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 endeavor 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.”

8.   The judgment in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. B.Venkatetaswamy (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court.  It appears that the aforesaid judgment was not brought to the knowledge of the Coordinate Bench of this Commission.

9.   In view of the discussions above, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the fora below. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  As we have dismissed the revision petition, no order on the application for condonation of delay of 359 days is called for.