BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Abdul Nasir r/o # 5, Mohalla Thakur Dwara, Opp. Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.82, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Adv. for OP

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the car bearing registration No.CH-04H-9854 was insured with the OP for the period 20.02.2009 to 19.02.2010 for IDV of Rs.4,10,646/-. Unfortunately, the car was stolen in the intervening night of 21/22.08.2009 when the same was parked outside the residence of the complainant, regarding which FIR (Annexure C-3) was lodged and the OP was informed on 21.08.2009. The complainant also submitted the untraced report and the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. to the OP. Despite submitting the requisite documents, the claim of the complaint was not settled. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 12.06.2010  but to no effect. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.               In their written reply, the introductory facts with regard to the issuance of the insurance policy and the occurrence of theft of the vehicle has been admitted.  The main defence of the OP is that the complainant had intimated the claim only on 31.8.2009 i.e. after the delay of 10 days of the date of occurrence and hence, the same was in breach of the condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It has been pleaded that the complainant failed to submit the legible copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. despite reminders. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.               Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.               We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.               The main contention of the complainant is that Despite submitting the requisite documents, the claim was not settled by the OP. Whereas on the other hand the OP contended that the claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that the occurrence of loss to the vehicle was not intimated to them immediately and therefore, there was violation of Condition No.1 of the policy. The fact of intimation of the theft to the OP on 31.08.2009 has also been submitted by the complainant himself, in para no.3 of the complaint.

6.             We have given our thought consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties.  Before we proceed further, let us examine whether there was any breach of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy as claimed by OP. The Condition No.1 of the insurance policy reads as under;

        “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and 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 shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the Insured. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending. Prosecution Inquest Fatal Injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act, which may be subject of 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.”

7.      As per Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the word ‘immediately’ means ‘at once’ whereas Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word ‘immediately’ in the context of contract has to be taken as reasonable requisite time for doing the thing. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word ‘immediately’ means doing of a thing straightway or forthwith but when used in the context of contract, it is usually construed to mean “within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case”. More or less to the effect, is the same meaning assigned in Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Since, in the present case, there was a contract between the insured and the insurer and, the word ‘immediately’, under the circumstances, has to be construed within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that the terms of Policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The Policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’. In the context of a theft of the car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation.

8.     The complainant has not been able to put any document on record to prove that the intimation regarding the said theft was informed to the OP within the prescribed period as laid down in the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof, the contentions of the OP appears to be true, therefore, facts and circumstances of the present case reveals that there was a delay of 10 days in informing the insurer on 31.08.2009 but the theft took place on 21/22.08.2009 and also the complainant has failed to submit the legible copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and on that count the claim of the complainant was found to have been rightly repudiated by the insurer/OP and for this act of the OP, they cannot be held liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

9.            In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

                Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.       

                                        Sd/-                                  Sd/-