ORDER

04.03.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a second-hand Maruti 800 car, bearing registration no. DL 9C J-2013. It is stated that after purchase of the said car, the complainant transferred the R.C (Registration Certificate) in his name and also transferred his name in the said policy. The said policy no-0100707107 00. The policy period was from 17.01.2013 to 16.01.2014. The IDV (Insured’s Declared Value) is Rs.68,000/-.
2. It is stated that unfortunately, the above said car was stolen between the intervening night of 29 and 30 March 2013, when it was parked outside his house. It is further stated that the intimation about the theft of the said car was given by the complainant to police department, the insurance company also. It is stated that in this regard, the police department given UNTRACE-REPORT also.
3. It is stated that due to this mishappening/theft of the said car, the father of the complainant was in depression and fell ill and the condition of the father of the complainant was so much critical that he was lastly admitted to Saroj Hospital. Hence, the complainant have to take his father to hospital for treatment. It is further stated that after this mishappening, the complainant approached the OP for theft-claim of the said car. It is stated that in this regard, the complainant approached the OP several times but there is no proper response given by them nor they have released the theft-claim of the said car. It is further stated that all the promises by the OP for the prompt and honest services are demolished by their own acts as the genuine claim of stolen car is not released till filing of this case which clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OP.
4. It is stated that by way of this complainant the complainant is seeking direction to OP to give/release the claim of the stolen car bearing registration no. DL 9C J 2013 of the complainant with interest for delay, to compensate the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- for the delay and for the harassment which the complainant has suffered during all this time and litigation charges Rs.15,000/- and any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.
5. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its WS thereby denying any deficiency in service. It is stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainant had informed about the theft to the OP after an inordinate delay of 79 days of happening of alleged theft of the vehicle and thus the same is in contravention of condition no.1 of the insurance policy. The said condition is reproduced as follows:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claimant summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any in pending prosecution, inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”.

6. It is stated that in view of the said delay, the answering OP sent a letter dated 17.07.2013 to the complainant inviting his comments. In clarification of the same vide letter dated 24.07.2013 complainant informed the police authorities on time and police official told him that the claim would be lodged with insurance company after the final report is given by them and in between his father got heart attack.
7. It is further stated that alleged loss took place on 29.03.2013 whereas complainant’s father got admitted in Saroj Hospital on 27.04.2013 i.e after 28 days of alleged accident. The complainant had sufficient time to intimate alleged loss to the company which he failed to do so. It is stated that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 02.09.2013 for violation of policy condition no.1 and condition no.8. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost in the light of aforesaid fact.
8. Complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant denied all the facts and allegations made in the WS.
9. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit.
10. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sanjay Bhagat Sr. Manager, Claims with Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. OP relied on cop of  the policy Ex.OP W1/1, copy of letter dated 17.07.2013 and 24.07.2013 Ex. OP W1/2 and Ex. OP W1/3 and copy of letter Ex. OP W1/4.
11. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
12. We have heard Sh. D.K Sinha counsel for complainant and Sh. Manoj Bharl counsel for OP and perused the record.
13. The sole question for our consideration is as to whether the OP Co. was justified in repudiating the claim lodged by the complainant.  The OP insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of 79 days in intimating to the Insurance Company regarding the theft in question.
14. Admittedly, in the common parlance, after the vehicle is stolen, a person who lost his vehicle would immediately lodged an FIR and the immediate conduct that would be expected of such a person would be to assist the Police in search of the vehicle. The registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the Police after the vehicle is not traced, would substantiate the claim of the claimant. Mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured, in the present case, the vehicle in question was got stolen on intervening night of 29/30.03.2013. The intimation of the theft was given to the Insurance Company on 08.06.2013 after receipt of the untraced report dated 17.05.2013. However, the intimation of the theft was given to the police immediately i.e on 30.03.2013 and the FIR regarding the same was registered vide FIR no. 147/2013  at PS Bawana.
15. On the issue of delay in intimation to the Ins. Co. regarding the theft of the vehicle we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. And Anrs. In Civil Appeal no. 653/20 decided on 24.01.2020, in which it was held that

“In a case of theft, the Ins. Co. or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and the recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the Ins. Co., at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.

It is further to be noted that in the event after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation. The registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would substantiate the claim of the complainant that the vehicle is stolen.

Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to breach of the duty to co-operate of the insured.

We concur with a view taken in the case of Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Ins. & Anr. that mere delay in intimating the Insurance company about the theft of the vehicle should not be shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine.

We therefore hold that when the insured had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged the final report that the vehicle was not traceable the mere delay in intimating the insurance company would amount to hypertechnical view, which would be unfair”

16. In the present case also, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the complainant. The untraced report was also filed on 17.05.2013 as the the vehicle could not be traced out. Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about 79 days on the part of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has repudiated only on the ground of delay. When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had filed untraced report  before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim  merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft. (Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court title as JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. In civil appeal no. 1069 OF 2022 decided on 11.02.2022)

17. In view of the judgments cited above, we are of the considered view that the rejection of the claim of the complainant by OP Insurance Co. was not justified and is arbitrary one.
18. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it flows that in the case of theft, the breach of policy condition is not german and even though the claim cannot be allowed in totality, it can still be allowed on non-standard basis.

19. Accordingly, holding OP guilty of deficiency in services. We direct OP as under:-

1. Release the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis alongwith interest @6% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 01.10.2013 till realization.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him which will include the cost of litigation.

20. OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.
21. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  04.03.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                    NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER