Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 23-05-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in CC/170/2016, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.

Facts of the complaint case, in a nutshell, are that some unknown miscreants escaped with his vehicle on 08-05-2014 against which, he lodged necessary complaint with the concerned Police Station.  After due inspection, the IO submitted FRT before the appropriate Court of Law.  Such intimation was also communicated to the office of Bhandari Automobiles as the policy was taken from there.  Subsequently, due intimation was given to the toll free number of the Insurance Company.  Yet, as the Insurance Company repudiated his claim on technical ground, this complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

In its WV, the OP submitted that the Complainant intimated the matter of alleged theft to the concerned Police Station and the Insurance Company after 1 and 58 days, respectively though it was incumbent on his part to communicate due intimation in this regard forthwith.  Further case of the OP Insurance Company is that the subject vehicle was used for commercial purpose and for this reason also, the instant claim was inadmissible.

Decision with reasons

Both sides were heard and documents on record gone through carefully.

The subject claim of the Respondent, as it appears, was disputed on the twin grounds of delayed intimation to the Insurance Company and alleged usage of the vehicle in question for hiring purpose.

We afraid, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the aforesaid grounds seem at all convincing to appreciate the contention of the Appellants.

The FRT submitted by the Police Authority leave nothing to imagination about the happening of the incident.  In this regard, it is worth recalling that the IRDA, by issuing a Circular on 20-09-2011 made it clear to all Insurance Companies that limitation condition contained in the insurance policy cannot be a valid ground for repudiation of an otherwise admissible/genuine claim.  It appears, Appellants are paying scant regard to such Regulatory advisory. 

On the other hand, as noted by the Ld. District Forum, the Appellants miserably failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the subject vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose.  Ld. Advocate for the Respondent claimed that the driver concerned allowed entry of unknown persons inside the vehicle purely on humanitarian ground as they pleaded for due help posing as polling personnel.  No cogent material proof is placed on record from the side of the Appellants that the Respondent ever violated the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act by using the subject vehicle for hire and reward purpose.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance & Anr., 2018 (1) CPR 907 (SC) has been pleased to observe that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator.  On the other hand, the Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Co. through Chairman v. M/s Track Way Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2011 (2) CPR 175 (NC) made it clear that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. 

It appears, all these aspects have been elaborately discussed by the Ld. District Forum in its order under scrutiny.  We find no reason at all to disagree with such findings. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs, 10,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent.