ORDER

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No.152 of 2010.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a truck Tata L.P.T. 2515 T.C. 48 P.S.E. 10 tyres having chassis No. 426031E.A.Z010195 and engine No. 80D62672258, temporary No. UBPC 0669 on 27.08.2008. The said vehicle was insured by the opposite party-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 27.08.2008, which was valid upto 26.08.2009.  In the night of 26/27.09.2008, the said vehicle was standing at Piran Kaliyar and the helper/second driver, Mohd. Saleem, was sleeping inside the truck.  Some unidentified persons murdered the helper/second driver and looted the truck.  The first information report (F.I.R.) of the said incident was lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Roorkee from the complainant’s side, which was registered at Case Crime No. 415/2008 under Section 302, 394 I.P.C.  The complainant informed the insurance company verbally as well as through in writing and also completed all the formalities of the insurance company and even after sending the legal notice dated 04.08.2009 and reminder notice dated 21.04.2010, which were sent through registered post, the insurance company did not settle or pay the claim of the said truck to the complainant.  The complainant had invested Rs. 17.00 lacs to purchase the said truck as well as for making the body of the same.  As the opposite party has not paid the claim amount, therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum for Rs. 17.00 lacs as cost of truck, Rs. 1.00 lac for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

3.       The opposite party-respondent has filed the written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the contents of para Nos. 1, 2 and 5of the consumer complaint are not admitted for want of knowledge and are denied, that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  In additional pleas, the opposite party has pleaded that the said vehicle was stolen on 26/27.09.2008 (wrongly stated 26/27.08.2008) as per the complaint, whereas the same was intimated by complainant after a long time near about one year, which is violation of term and condition No. 1 of the insurance policy, which reads as under:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately up on the occurrence of any accident/loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.”

That the said consumer complaint filed by the complainant after a long time of two years, without any sufficient reason.  The case is under investigation of police and till the date no final report given by him.  That till the date the opposite party has not received any survey or investigation report of said case, therefore, the opposite party reserves the right to file an additional written statement after receiving the investigation report of the said case. That the complainant has no valid documents of alleged vehicle like R.C., insurance, permit, valid driving license of the driver.  The policy, if any, is subject to confirmation of 64VB Insurance Act.  That the said case is filed with malafide intention of the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed.  That the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable, as there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

4.      The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint No. 152 of 2010 vide order dated 22.06.2013.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-complainant has filed the present appeal.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 

6.      There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant-appellant has purchased a truck on 27.08.2008 having temporary No. UBPC 0669 and this vehicle was insured by the opposite party-respondent (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.), which was valid from 27.08.2008 to 26.08.2009, as there is no specific denial regarding the same in the written statement filed by the opposite party.  There is also no specific denial regarding the fact that after looting the said truck and murder of second driver Mohd. Saleem sleeping on the said vehicle in the night intervening 26/27.08.2008. The complainant completed the formalities and also sent legal notice dated 04.08.2009 as well as reminder notice dated 21.04.2010 through registered post to the respondent.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant had immediately lodged an F.I.R. through other person just after the incident.  Learned counsel argued that the appellant had also intimated the respondent immediately after the incident verbally as well in writing.  The respondent has admitted in the written statement that the insurance company had not received any surveyor report or any investigation report about the said case so far.  This shows that the appellant had intimated the respondent immediately just after the incident.  The intimation was also given twice or thrice on toll free number of respondent. The intimation was given within 2-3 days, thereafter the respondent started the investigation as well as appointed the surveyor.  Learned counsel also argued that the investigator of the respondent sent a letter to the complainant on 08.12.2008 which clearly reflects that the respondent had wrongly pleaded in the written statement that there is delay in intimation.  The police, after investigation has filed charge sheet in the court, therefore, there was no question of obtaining final report from the court.

8.      Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has never given any written intimation to the respondent-insurance company.  The appellant had given the intimation only after one month by telephone.  The police has not submitted any final report regarding the said truck. 

9.      During proceedings of appeal, this Commission has observed that the respondent-insurance company has neither repudiated the claim, nor decided the same as yet, therefore, the appellant was directed to furnish the entire documents to the insurance company within 15 days and the insurance company, thereafter shall decide the matter pertaining to the claim of the appellant within a period of 45 days.   Thereafter on the next date fixed the appellant has filed copy of the repudiation letter and the record of the District Forum was also summoned.  The repudiation letter filed by the appellant is at paper No. 39.  From the perusal of the repudiation letter dated 14.04.2013, it is clear that the insurance company has repudiated the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant had not intimated the loss to RGICL, whereas the alleged theft had taken place on 27.09.2008, thus, depriving the insurance company of an immediate opportunity to check and investigate the circumstances of alleged theft immediately after its occurrence, which is a breach of policy condition No. 1 of the insurance policy that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.  Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.  Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this policy.  In case of theft or criminal act, which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. 

10.    In the said repudiation letter, the insurance company has stated that on account of breach of condition No. 1 of the policy it would not be possible for the insurance company to admit liability for this claim and the claim stood repudiated. 

11.    From the perusal of the documents like tax invoice of Commercial Motors (Dehradun) Pvt. Ltd. (paper No. 18), proposal-cover note for package policy in the name of appellant issued by respondent (paper No. 19) and temporary certificate of registration issued by the registering authority (R.T.O.), Dehradun (paper No. 20) and also a copy of F.I.R. lodged by one Rais Ahmad (paper No. 23) and also copy of charge sheet filed by the police station, Roorkee against two accused persons namely Gulfam and Pappu (paper No. 32), it is evident that the appellant purchased a truck from Commercial Motors, which was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and the appellant had also taken an insurance policy of the said truck from respondent on the same date.  Now the question arise, whether the appellant had lodged a prompt report in the nearest police station and also intimated the insurance company (insurer) of the said truck just after the incident.  From the perusal of the copy of F.I.R. it is evident that the said truck was standing in front of Rais Ahmad’s house and one of the sons Mohd. Saleem sleeping inside the truck.  In the intervening night of 26/27.08.2008 some unidentified persons came to the spot and murdered Mohd. Saleem, the so called second driver of the truck and looted the same truck.  The first informant had lodged F.I.R. in P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee on 27.09.2008 at 8:30 a.m., therefore, information/intimation given by the first informant to the police is prompt.  So far, the intimation given by the appellant to the insurance company is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had intimated the insurance company immediately just after the incident, but there is no evidence on the record of the District Forum as well as before the Commission about any written information or intimation sent by the appellant to the respondent.  The investigator had sent a letter dated 08.12.2008 to the appellant, which only shows that this investigator was appointed by the insurance company sometime in the month of December, 2008, i.e. after two months of the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had sent information/intimation to the respondent immediately just after the incident. 

12.    The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ramesh Chandra vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.; I (2014) CPJ 321 (NC)., has held that the truck in question was allegedly stolen in the night of 4/5.04.2008 at around 1-1:30 a.m.  As per the allegations in the complaint, the theft was reported to the police 11 days later vide F.I.R. No. 107 lodged at Police Station, Punahan, District Gurgaon on 15.04.2008.  There is nothing in the complaint to indicate on which date the theft was reported to the respondent Insurance Company.  Thus, it can be safely inferred that theft was reported by the petitioner to the authorities after a delay of 11 days.  The aforesaid delay obviously has prevented the insurance company as also the police to start timely investigation with a view to locate and recover the truck.  Thus, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission that by failing to promptly inform the theft of the truck to the police as well as the insurance company, the petitioner has failed to take proper care to protect the interest of the respondent insurance company.  As such the respondent insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.  The Hon’ble National Commission has also observed in this case that the petitioner has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy by failing to report the theft to the police as well as the insurance company within a reasonable time.  In the instant case, the violation committed by the petitioner is grave because by failing to intimate the theft to the police and the insurance company, the petitioner has prevented those authorities from taking prompt action to locate and recover the truck.  The revision petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission.  Further, the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Gyarsi Devi and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.; IV (2011) CPJ 30 (NC),  has held that the theft had to be intimated to insurance company immediately.  There was unconscionable delay of over two months on the part of complainant intimating delay to insurance company.  The order of State Commission was upheld.  The Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd. and Ors.; III (2012) CPJ 562 (NC), has held that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as opposite parties about alleged incident – Delay in lodging F.I.R. and sending intimation about theft to insurer would be fatal to recovery of insured vehicle – repudiation of claim on this ground justified.  Similarly in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2013 (1) UC 562, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the delay in reporting the theft of the vehicle is to be crucial in the matter of violation of terms and conditions of policy based on which claim of the complainant was non-suited. 

13.    The complainant has lodged an F.I.R. through other person promptly on 27.09.2008 as is evident from the copy of F.I.R. (paper No. 23), but the appellant has not filed any evidence on the record to show that any intimation was sent to the opposite party immediately just after the incident.  There is no evidence in the form of written application, which can prove the immediate intimation to the insurance company.  The respondent has stated in its written statement that the appellant had intimated the insurance company after about one year of the incident, but there is a letter of investigator sent to the appellant on 08.12.2008, which shows that the appellant had intimated the respondent-insurance company sometime in the month of December, 2008, i.e. about one or two months later.  After perusal of the record it is clear that the complainant had never intimated the respondent promptly or within two-three days, therefore, the citations above noted are fully applicable in this case also.  There is no dispute on the name of Rais Ahmad or Rahees Ahmad in the appeal, as the appellant had not intimated the respondent, therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum has properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

14.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 152 of 2010 is hereby confirmed.  No order as to costs.

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