ORDER

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

      In the case of –“New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Trilochan Jane (First appeal no. 321 of 2005), the honorable National Commission held :

  Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The said judgment was in a totally different context. In the said case, the plea taken by the insurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of terms in the policy.  The Plea raised by the Insurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane.  In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation.  The Delay in lodging the FIR after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the insurance company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi (Scrap Dealer).

              In our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the respondent/complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant-insurance company within a reasonable time.

    In the case in hand, the complainant  is the owner of a car bearing registration number DL N CZ -1842. He had purchased a policy of insurance from the OP in respect of the aforesaid car. During the subsistence of the said policy  , this car was stolen on the night intervening 8^th and 9^th  September 2012.  The complainant had lodged an FIR bearing no. 385/2012. The claim lodged by the complainant for the loss was repudiated by the insurance company which led the complainant to the filing of the present complaint.
     

    The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has admitted that it had issued a policy of insurance in respect of the stolen vehicle in favour of the complainant . It has , however, justified the repudiation of the claim lodged by the complainant in respect of the loss on the plea that the complainant was guilty of violation of the terms and conditions of the contract.  It has claimed that the complainant had intimated in writing to the insurance company about the loss only on 30.11.2012 i.e. after a delay of more than 2 ½ months.  The OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    It is admitted on record that the theft the vehicle had taken place on the night intervening 8^th and 9^th September , 2012 . Even , though an FIR was lodged immediately after the theft the intimation to the  insurance company was given only on 30-11-2012.  In view of the judgment cited by us above, the OP was justified in repudiating the claim.  We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.   File be consigned to record room.

     Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................