1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 18.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 750 of 2012 in which order dated 01.06.2012 of  Bhilwada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 07 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.12.2015 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum, the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 18.04.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 10.07.2023 ( Petitioner ) and 12.03.2024 ( respondent) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant is the registered owner of the tractor, who got his vehicle insured from the OP for the period w.e.f. 22.09.2010 to 21.09.2011.  The driver of the complainant started from Peethaas to Dhoolkheda on 16.04.2011 and at 8.00 p.m., in the night reached on the road near  Suras Chowk.  The tractor suddenly stopped functioning and inspite of best effort, the tractor did not start.  Therefore, he went to bring some mechanic.  When he came back, the tractor was not found there even despite searching.  He got the FIR registered vide report FIR No. 100 of 2021 at PS Sadar Bhilwada on which after investigation, SHO Bhilwada submitted final report regarding non tracing of tractor before the Court which got accepted on 14.07.2011, information of which was given to the Complainant.  After completing all the formalities, the complainant submitted his claim before the OP.  The claim of the  Complainant was not rejected by the OP for a long time and on 28.09.2011 rejected the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’, information of which was given to the Complainant.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 01.06.2012 dismissed the CC.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred FA before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 18.12.2015 allowed the appeal of the Complainant.  Therefore, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 18.12.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission did not appreciate that there was considerable delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and giving intimation to the Petitioner after a delay of 1 month and 1 day.  Further, there is violation of the terms of the policy. Further, Insurance Policy is a contract and all its terms should be construed strictly.

2. State Commission erred in ignoring the fact that insured vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose which is in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5, argued that delay in FIR or intimation of claim to the insurer deprives the police and insurance company from conducting any inquiry, as a result of which the chances of recovering the stolen vehicle also gets minimized

6.2     Learned counsel for the respondent argued that delayed intimation cannot be a ground for repudiation as there was no bar or restrictions in the policy terms and conditions and  bare perusal of condition no.1 of the policy, which has not been formed part of the policy document but alleged to be violated is applicable in the present case only upto the part of theft claim and further as per the condition, the complainant has fulfilled all the criteria.  Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :

a.       Dharamender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 575 of 2021

b.       Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance, Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020.

c.       Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance, Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017

d.       Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2010

e.       National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwar, Civil Appeal No. 3409 of 2008.

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The claim has been repudiated by the Insurance Company mainly on two grounds  (a) delay in lodging the FIR ( 6) days and delay in intimating the insurance company ( 1 month 1 day ) and ( b) use of the vehicle for hire or reward which is not covered under the policy.  As regards delay in lodging the FIR, although the Complainant took the plea that he intimated the police immediately but it is the police who delayed the FIR,  he could not place on record any evidence to show that he intimated the police immediately.  As regards delay in lodging FIR and intimating the Insurance Company, the respondent / complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharmender Vs. United India Insuance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , Civil Appeal No. 5705 of 2021, in which delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR and delay of 78 days in intimating the insurance company was allowed.  The second reason for repudiating the claim is that tractor in question was being used to transport sand in trolley and the policy specifically puts a limitation on use and does not cover use for hire or reward.  However, there is no evidence on record from the side of the insurance company in this regard. 

8.       We have considered the case in the light of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied  upon by the parties. In Gurshinder Singh Vs.. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. (2020) 1 SCC 612, Hon’ble Supreme concurring with the view taken by it in Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. ( Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017) decided on 04.10.2017, observed that if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be hyper technical view.  Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh  (supra) held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced, …….. then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.          In case of Dharmender ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed delay of 78 days in intimating the insurance company.  In this case there was delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR.  However, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in respect of the argument that FIR was delayed, the said argument need not be examined in this case as the case of the Insurance Company throughout was based upon delay in intimation to the Insurance Company.  No doubt the policy condition envisages that in case of theft, the police has to be intimated immediately.  In the present case, the FIR has been lodged with delay of 6 days and intimation to the insurance company having been given with a delay of 1 month 1 day. Considering the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh ( supra) that rejection of the claim on purely technical grounds and in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry, that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the consumers,  it is a beneficial legislation that deserves a liberal construction, the contract is to be interpreted according to the context involved in the contract considering the application of the rule of contra preferatum, when ambiguity exists and an interpretation of the contract is preferred which favours the party with lesser bargaining power,  we are of the view that in the present case, delay in lodging the FIR and informing the insurance company can be condoned, especially considering the plea of the respondent that they orally intimated the police immediately but it is the police who delayed the FIR.  Obviously, it is difficult for the complainant to produce any such evidence as any admission by the police in this regard will go against the police and police would not admit such fact.   In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that there is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, RP is dismissed.

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