This appeal is directed against the final order of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda dated 28/02/2014 in reference to DF/20/2013. The fact of the case in brief is that one Sanjay Lala purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike in the year 2009 which was covered with insurance through Reliance General Insurance for the period between 10/12/2010 and 09/12/2011. The vehicle was stolen on 31/07/2011 and FIR was registered before the concerned P.S on 05/08/2011 and he intimated the insurance company for the lost of the vehicle on 11/08/2011. Thereafter, the insurance company repudiated the claim of S. Lala for which he registered the consumer complaint against Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Reliance Insurance company has contested the case by filing the W.V and contended that the vehicle was first insured through Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. for the period between 20/03/2009 and 19/03/2010 and after a long gap of more than nine months, he insured the vehicle through Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and for that reason, the alleged coverage of insurance was void ab initio and became inactive. The further case of the insurance company is that the FIR was lodged after 5 days from the date of incident and the claim was registered before the Insurance Company after a gap of 11 days since the date of alleged theft and for that reason, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences and after hearing both sides had adjudicated the dispute and awarded compensation in favour of the complainant S. Lala.
Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal follows on the ground that the order of ld. Forum was suffered from irregularity and the findings of Ld. Forum was not appropriate one. The appeal was registered before the Hon’ble State Commission, Kolkata Bench where the complainant S. Lala has recorded his presence there and at his instance the case was reassigned to this Bench for disposal. After receiving the case record the respondent S. Lala never approached before this Commission to contest the appeal inspite of the repeated dates was provided to him for hearing. So, the appeal was heard through Ld. Advocate of appellant Mr. Pawa.
D E C I S I O N S W I T H R E A S O N S
It is not in disputed that S. Lala was the owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike purchased from the dealer of the company in the month of March, 2009 and at the first instance, the vehicle was covered with insurance through Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. from the period between 20/03/2009 and 19/03/2010. Thereafter, he did not renew the insurance in due time and thereafter he purchased a new insurance policy from the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10/12/2010. There is gap of more than 9 months. Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned before this Commission that as per the IRDA guidelines if the policy is not renewed within 90 days from the date of expiry of the existing policy then in that case the NCB is terminated and for that reason, the policy issued by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ipso facto void ab initio having no effective insurance coverage and no benefit could be extended for any reimbursement of loss sustained by the insured through a defective policy. After carefully going through the documents furnished by the complainant S. Lala before the Ld. Forum which speaks that the first policy of the said vehicle was expired on 19/03/2010 and the present policy in question issued by the appellant company on 10/12/2010 that is after expiry of about 9 months which is contrary to the guidelines of IRDA. So, the argument of Ld. Advocate of the appellant appears to be convincing and appropriate one. Admitted position is that the vehicle was lost by theft on 31/07/2011 while the intimation was registered about such theft before the police station on 05/08/2011 while there is no explanation on the part of the complainant as to why the FIR was registered after 5 days since the date of incident. And Ld. Forum at the time of adjudicating this dispute has overlooked the aspect of this defect. Ld. Advocate of the appellant further pointed out that as per rule of insurance the notice to be given to the insurer immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage of the subject matter/insured but here in this particular case, there was a gap of 11 days since the date of alleged theft of the vehicle and no explanation was there also on the part of the complainant as to why he could not intimate the missing of the vehicle to the insurance company immediately. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of his argument referred a judicial decision reported in 2018(2) CPR 587 (NC) where it was held that the condition of any insurance policy expressly required complainant to give in writing to the insurance company immediately upon occurrence of any loss or damage and if no such intimation had been given then there was a breach of mandatory term of insurance policy. In this score, Ld. Forum has observed that mere delay of sending intimation of loss to the insurance company does not permit the company to repudiate the claim of the insured. This observation of Ld. Forum also appears to be most unworthy one as because if there was Bonafede on the part of the insured then why he could not intimate the matter to the insurance company immediately as it was his mandatory duty to intimate the same to the insurance company. No explanation was there about such delay on the part of the insured also in this case. So, the observation of Ld. Forum appears to be incorrect one and not justified within the provisions of law. So, the order of Ld. Forum should be interfered in the appeal.
Thus, the appeal succeeds on its own merit.
Hence it is,
O R D E R E D
That the appeal be and same is hereby allowed on merit without imposing any cost. The final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda dated 28/02/2014 in reference to DF/20/2013 stands set aside.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the concerned forum through e-mail.
