Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

2.       The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing registration no. OR-02-AU-5520 and for maintain livelihood he purchased it. He insured it with O.P after paying premium of Rs. 11,925/-  under policy bearing no. 345901/31/2011/3340.The policy was valid from 06.10.2010 to 05.10.2011. The sum assured of the policy was Rs. 4,00,000/-.  

3.       The vehicle was hired by two person from Manipur, Bhuban,Dhenkanal to Bhushan steel Ltd.,Narendrapur, Dhenkanal   on 05.02.2011. The complainant has alleged that, after reaching Bhushan at 2 P.M on the same day  at “ Savera lodge”,the driver was unconscious by taking lunch with passengers, who  gave some sedative/poisonous food to him. There after they have stolen away the vehicle. The manager of that lodge intimated the incident to the complainant on 06.02.2010 and the driver  also came to the complainant on that date. But due to unwell condition of the driver ,the complainant advised him to take rest .On  the next day i.e 07.02.2010 the driver narrated whole story to the complainant and the complainant lodged FIR on 07.02.2010 at the Bhushan police station. Later he intimated to O.P and submitted claim form on 10.02.2011.The complainant submitted that, the policy was in force during the time of theft. But the O.P repudiated the claim on 25.10 .2012 stating the ground that, the intimation to O.P was made after 48 hours of theft of the vehicle  and at that time the driver had  no valid license. Hence this complaint.

4.        The O.P in its written version contended that, this case is not maintainable because the complainant has violated terms and condition of the insurance policy. The O.P admitted that the policy was valid from 06.10. 2010  to 05.10.2011 .The O.P further contended that, this O.P has deputed investigator Rajani kanta sahoo for enquiry of the incident. The said investigator after investigation submitted his report and stated that,the driver Karunakar Dehuri has no transport vehicle license at that time and police has submitted final report as FRT but no clue. The O.P further contended that, the investigator in its findings observed that, the vehicle was kept on 05.02.2011 near the “Savera lodge” Infront of the BSL Steel Plant with proper lock and key. The complainant had lodged FIR on 07.02.2011 at Bhusan Police Station. Thereafter the complainant intimated O.P and submitted claim form on 10.02.2011  claiming Rs. 4,00,000/. Therefore this O.P has rightly repudiated the claim. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties the learned District forum has passed following order.

The case is allowed on contest. we direct the opposite party to pay the insured value of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/-only and Rs. 3,000/-only towards cost of litigation to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.P shall liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e 3.1. 2013 till the date of final payment.

6.       The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is illegal, arbitrary against the materials on records and as such the order is unsustainable . The appellant submitted that, the complainant had intimated to the O.P after 48 hours of the occurrence ,so there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  The driver has  no valid license at the time of incident.   Hence the appellant has repudiated the claim. Therefore he prayed to seta side the impugned order.

7.     Considered the submission of both the parties. Perused the DFR and impugned order. The onus lies on the complainant to prove his case.

8.      It is admitted fact that, the complainant has insured the vehicle with the O.P. it is admitted fact that, the sum assured of the vehicle was Rs.4,00,000/-. It is admitted fact that, during subsistence of the policy theft occurred. It is admitted fact that , the complainant has lodged FIR on 07.02.2011. it is admitted fact that, the complainant has intimated O.P on 09.02.11 and submitted claim form on 10.02.11 . it is amitted fact that, the police has submitted final report on 29.09.2011    before SDJM,Dhenkanal    stating the fact is true ,no clue .It is also admitted fact that, the O.P repudiated claim on 25.10 .2012 stating the ground that, the intimation to O.P was made after 48 hours of theft of the vehicle  and at that time the driver had  no valid license. The xerox copy of investigator’s report shows that, in his observation at para 11 and 12 he has mentioned that, the insured cum owner has observed all necessary formalities.so it is revealed that, the theft case is a genuine one, hence the claim may be settled after receiving final report from police.

9.      We rely on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in Gurshinder Singh vrs Shriram General Insurance Company ltd. and anr. reported in (2020)11 SCC 612, where it is held that, “when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft can not be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The claim can not be rejected merely because the complainant did not intimate about theft of vehicle to the O.P. In the instant case for which the complainant lodged FIR within 48 hours before police after the vehicle  went missing. So the claim is a genuine one.

10.     Thus for the foregoing discussion ,we affirmed the District forum order. The Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.