Complainant/respondent got his car insured with the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2 lakh for the period from 29.8.2003 to 28.8.2004.  the said car was taken by his cousin for his personal use. It was found missing from his house on 21.10.2003.  His cousin made search for the lost car but when he could not succeed, he lodged the report with the police on 21.2.2004.  Police submitted the C-Report meaning thereby that the car could not be traced.  Respondent lodged claim with the petitioner on 19.4.2004 along with original R.C., insurance certificate, police report and car keys.  Petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the insurance company about the alleged theft as well as registering the report with the police.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

          On being served, petitioner entered appearance and filed its written statement pleading therein that on being informed the petitioner made enquiries.  That the theft took place on 21.10.2003 and the police report was lodged on 21.2.2004, nearly 4 months from the date of the theft and the claim was lodged with the insurance company on 19.4.2004, 2 months after lodging the complaint with the police.  As per terms of the policy, respondent was required to lodge the FIR as well as inform the petitioner immediately about the theft of the vehicle so as to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to investigate about the missing vehicle under the terms of the policy. 

The District Forum, after going through the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, the respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.2 lakh along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that the delay had occurred as the respondent was himself making efforts to search the car and when he could not trace the vehicle, he filed the complaint with the police.  That the respondent had reasonably explained the delay in lodging the claim and the petitioner had erred in repudiating the same, which amounted to deficiency in service.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, in the present case, there was a delay of 6 months in lodging the claim with the petitioner.  As per the terms of the policy, respondent was required to inform the petitioner about the theft immediately so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to investigate about the theft to the petitioner.  Because of the delay in lodging the claim, petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to investigate regarding theft.  Respondent was guilty of violation of the terms of the policy.

Point in issue is squarely concluded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by a judgement of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the delay in lodging the claim was fatal and the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondent, as the respondent had not complied with the terms of the policy.  Relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court reads 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 it about 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 endeavour 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.”

Respectfully following the view taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we accept this Revision Petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum.  There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………………….

(ASHOK  BHAN J.)

PRESIDENT

…………………………………………

(VINEETA  RAI)

MEMBER

/sra/  18  / Court-1