Passed  by Shri Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant has filed complaint case against repudiation of insurance claim for the theft of  Truck against the arbitrary rejection of  insurance and thereby claiming claim amount of Rs.10,30,000/- alongwith compensation with interest.

The story in short is as under

2. The complainant was owner of Ashok Leyland Ecomet 1212 HSD truck bearing no MH-40 Y-4754 purchased on 5.10.2013 and insured under policy bearing no.215034/31/15/001653 from 12.12.2014 to 11.12.2015. on 6.12.2015 when the truck waiting of RTO passing there was long queue  for passing of  truck therefore driver of the truck locked the vehicle and gone for lunch at 11.30 a.m. when driver came back he found that truck was missing. The complainant search the truck in nearby area of city thereafter lodged the complaint at Jaripatka police station on dated 11.12.2015. The intimation of theft was given to insurance company on dated 5.2.2016, the Jaripatka police registered FIR and submitted final report to Judicial Magistrate on dated 25.6.2016  alongwith a summery final report. The O.P. 1 and 2 has failed to settle the insurance claim of complainant, after submission of relevant document and request to the settle the claim and thereafter complainant issued legal notice on dated 1.5.2017 but the O.P.No. 1 and 2 have not complied the notice therefore present complaint is file.

3. The O.P. No.1 and 2 has filed reply and denied allegation and submitted the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose therefore complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant vehicle was stolen by unknown persons on dated 6.12.2015 which was parked near RTO office but intimation to the insurance company was given on 30.12.2015, there is a delay of 24 days in intimation and FIR of theft of vehicle was lodged with police station on dated 5.2.2016 after laps of 2 months from the date of incidence. Therefore it is breach of terms and conditions of policy condition No.1. Delay in intimation to the insurer is deprives the valuable right to investigation the commission of theft and tracing of vehicle.  The complainant driver was negligence in safeguarding the vehicle not taking proper care of vehicle to safeguard the vehicle and kept the vehicle unattended. Therefore the complainant breach the condition No.5 of the policy, therefore complaint has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant lodged the FIR in Jaripatka police after search of vehicle and when the vehicle could not trace out the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company. The vehicle was parked in locked position and there was huge crowed at RTO office for passing of vehicle. The reason for delay of intimation and registration of FIR is bonafide and therefore the complainant insurance claim is genuine and therefore the complaint may be allowed.
5. Counsel for O.P. 1 and 2 argued that the delay in intimation of theft for more than 24 days is a breach of terms and condition of policy and registration of FIR after laps of 2 months from the date of alleged theft and negligent of act of taking proper care to safeguard the truck is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy therefore the compliant has no merit and therefore liable to dismissed with cost.

6. O.P No.3 has filed reply and denied allegation and submitted and argued that the O.P.No.3 has sanctioned loan to purchase vehicle to the complainant after hypothecating the vehicle.  The complainant stopped paying regular instalments and loan account become NPA due to theft of truck and if complainant successes the claim or relief shall be directed to be deposited in the loan account and O.P.No.3 has no role in adjudication of insurance claim therefore the complainant case may be dismissed against O.P.No. 3.

REASONING

7. The complainant who is owner of Truck No.MH-40-Y-4754  and was parked on 6.12.2015 near RTO office Nagpur at 11.30 a.m. when the truck driver after locking of truck had gone for lunch and thereafter after lunch while coming back the truck was missing.  The complainant had lodged complaint for missing of truck after search with Jaripatka Police Station in written dated 11.12.2015 duly endorsed by duty officer of Jaripatka police station as per document at sr. no.4 and thereafter the FIR came to be registered us/ 154 of CRPC on dated 5.2.2016 and a Final report came to be filed at JMFC-7, Nagpur u/s 173 CRPC on dated 5.6.2016. The basic dispute and reason for repudiation of insurance claim is delayed registration of FIR after the 61 days and intimation of the incidence was delay for 24 days as per repudiation latter issued by O.P. dated 18.6.2016.

8. After the incidence of theft complainant moved the complaint for the registration of FIR with police station on 11.12.2015 and after enquiry the police has registered FIR on 5.2.2016.  It is a general practice of police station not to register the FIR of missing of vehicle immediately and asked to search the vehicle first, the registration of FIR is the sole description of police officer and complainant cannot compel to register FIR immediately.  The reason for moving application after search of vehicle on 11.12.2015 after the delay of 6 days was a bonafide reason for moving complaint to the police station.
9. The  complainant has submitted in his rejoinder filed 22.11.2018 that on the date of theft of vehicle the complaint intimated the incident of theft by telephonic to the insurance company therefore for delay in registration of FIR does not cancel the whole policy ,  therefore the complainant is entitled the claim of 60% of IDV value  i.e. Rs.6,18,000/- of  Rs.10,30,000/- without awarding  any cost interest as per following order

                                              O R D E R

1. Complaint partly allowed.  
2. O.P. Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely to pay 60 % of insurance claim of  Rs.6,18,000/- of  IDV of Rs.10,30,000/- of Truck No. MH -40 -Y-4754, without awarding any cost and interest thereon.

3. No order is passed against op no. 3.

4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.