Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/587

INDRAJEET SINGH TOMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GEN. INSU. CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.HEMANT SHARMA

04 Dec 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 31.10.2018 passed in C. C. No.351/2017 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

INDRAJEET SINGH TOMAR,

S/O SHRI SUNDER SINGH TOMAR,

R/O INDRA NAGAR, CHAAR SHAHAR KA NAKA,

GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                                        … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    SECOND FLOOR, 15-A, ABOVE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

    NEAR CAFE DAY, MALVIYA NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

   

2. REGIONAL MANAGER,

    MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE LIMITED,

    JHANSI ROAD, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                           … RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY           :  ACTING PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK     :  MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           Shri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

O R D E R

(Passed on 04.12.2024)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                    This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 351/2017 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant are that after getting financial assistance from the opposite party no.2-Mahindra Finance Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'finance company') he had purchased a Bolero bearing registration no.MP-07 GA-5621. The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) for a period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.4,58,000/-. During the currency of the insurance cover, in the intervening night of 20-21.08.2016, the subject vehicle got stolen when it was parked outside his house, of which FIR was lodged with the Police Station Hajira, Gwalior. When the vehicle was not traced, the police filed Final Report (FR) before the court which was accepted by the court on 04.02.2017. The insurance company was also informed on toll free number twice on 21.08.2016 and the claim form along with requisite documents was submitted.  The appellant alleged that the insurance company vide letter dated 08.03.2017 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant informed the insurance company after 11 days, which amounts to deficiency in service.  He therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the insurance company approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

 

-3-

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent-insurance company in its reply raised preliminary objection that vide letter dated 23.01.2017 clarification was sought from the complainant regarding delay and when the complainant did not provide any clarification and it was found that there was violation of policy terms and conditions the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 08.03.2017. The complaint is therefore not maintainable. As per complainant, the subject vehicle was stolen on 20.08.2016 of which FIR was lodged after two days and the reason assigned was that he was searching for the vehicle. The insurance company was informed after 11 days i.e. on 02.09.2016 whereas it is necessary to inform the insurance company within 48 hours.  The claim was not payable on the ground of delayed intimation, since it is violation of policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.  It was therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2 finance company in its reply raised preliminary objection that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and for any act of the insurance company, the finance company cannot be held liable. Since the present complaint is related to payment of insurance claim, there is no liability of the finance company. As per agreement executed between the appellant and the

-4-

finance company the appellant is liable to repay the financed amount with interest. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the finance company. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Heard.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the police and the insurance company were intimated timely about the theft. The insurance company has thus wrongly repudiated the claim. He argued that the insurance company has denied the claim merely on technical grounds and the District Commission has erred further, in dismissing the complaint.  He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company argued that there is delay in intimation of alleged theft to the insurance company as well as the police.  Since there was delay in intimation to the police and insurance company about theft, there is violation of policy terms and conditions and the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim.  He argued that the appellant did not give any justification regarding delayed intimation to the police and the insurance company.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-finance company argued that since the vehicle is insured with the insurance company, the

-5-

dispute regarding claim amount lies between the appellant and the insurance company. The finance company has nothing to do in the matter. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

9.                On careful perusal of the repudiation letter dated 08.03.2017, (Exhibit ‘C-6’), which is available in the record of the District Commission, we find that the insurance company has denied the appellant’s claim on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR as also delay in intimating the insurance company about occurrence of theft of subject vehicle.

10.              The appellant has said to have intimated the police promptly in the matter, regarding alleged theft.  However, on going through the FIR (C-3) we find that the FIR was lodged on 23.08.2016 at 21:17 hours whereas the theft took place in the intervening night of 20-21.08.2016. In the column of reasons for delay in reporting, it is stated that the appellant tried searching for the vehicle. The appellant has failed to file any documentary evidence on record in order to substantiate that on the date of theft i.e. on 21.08.2016 he immediately informed the police but the police did not lodge FIR. FIR bears no such mention that the police was intimated by the appellant on earlier date. Thus, there is delay of almost 2 days in lodging the FIR with the police and it cannot be believed that the police was intimated promptly in the matter.

 

-6-

11.              It is relevant to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr,I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) in concurrence with a view taken by it in Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance Company LimitedIV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC) has held that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police.

12.              Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2022) CPJ 119 (SC), whereby it is held in the paragraph 14 that “……..The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle.Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.”

13.              The above referred judgments have though given relaxation regarding intimation to the insurance company, but the view of the Apex Court is to stress upon prompt intimation to the police.

-7-

14.              Clearly, since in this matter, there is delay on part of the appellant in intimating the police regarding occurrence of the alleged theft, the appellant’s claim has rightly been denied by the insurance company on this ground. The insurance company thus cannot be held deficient in service.

15.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of a considered opinion that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant/appellant is not entitled to get any relief.

16.              To conclude, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

       (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY)                   (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

            ACTING PRESIDENT                                MEMBER