STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 72 of 2020

Shivnath Rai, aged about 52 years, S/o- Late Ram Balak Rai, R/o- Village-Ser Naryan, PS- Dariyapur, District- Saran (Chhapra), at present- Shernagar Colony, Gobersahi, Road No. 4, House No. 439(B), PS- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur

                                                                                                                                                           … Complainant/Appellant

Versus

1. The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd. P& T Colony, Goshala Road, Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur

                                                                                                                                                                      …. Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Jay Prakash Verma

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Sanjay Kumar Sharan

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 19.06.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf appellant/complainant for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case no. 71 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint case.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing registration no. BR-06Y-3369 was insured by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. for sum assured amount of Rs. 30,182/- on 20.05.2014.
3. The insured motorcycle was stolen on 17.12.2014 and information of which was given to local police on 17.12.2014 as well as to the insurance company, however, FIR was registered by the police being Sadar PS case no. 12 of 2015 on 06.01.2015 under section 379 of IPC in which after investigation police submitted final form on 31.03.2015 in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur showing the case to be true but without any clue and final form was accepted on 17.06.2015 by the Ld. Court.
4. Complainant submitted insurance claim on 09.07.2015 in the office of insurance company along with all relevant documents and claim case was registered by the insurance company and insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on 24.12.2015 on the ground that complainant instituted FIR on 06.01.2015 and intimated insurance company on 14.01.2015, although the vehicle was stolen on 17.12.2014 and same being in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy claim was repudiated, against which complainant filed a consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur for setting aside repudiation of claim by order dated 24.12.2015 and for payment of insured amount.
5. Notices were issued to the insurance company and they filed their written statement stating therein that complainant submitted written application to the Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14.01.2015 informing theft of his vehicle on 17.12.2014 which was after 28 days of theft of vehicle and as such the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 24.12.2015 being in violation of express terms & conditions of policy of insurance.
6. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that there is no evidence either oral or documentary adduced by the complainant to establish that information to the police or the insurance company was made on 17.12.2014 i.e the date on which the vehicle was stolen or soon thereafter.
7. The District Consumer Forum has further held that in case of theft the police as well as insurance company has to be immediately informed otherwise it will be difficult for them to trace and recover the vehicle and delay of 28 days is in violation of terms & conditions of insurance policy as such repudiation of claim by the insurance company was justified and dismissed the complaint case filed by complainant against which appeal has been preferred before the State Commission.
8. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that information to the police as well as insurance company was given on 17.12.2014 but the police did not instituted the FIR and same was instituted on 06.01.2015. Police after investigation has found the case of theft to be true and has also submitted the final report as case to be true but without any clue as such the theft of the vehicle during insurance period is established and only on the ground of late intimation to the police and insurance company the genuine claim of complainant can not be denied.
9. The counsel for the insurance company on the other hand has supported the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and submits that the order is based on the basis of various orders pronounced by the Apex Court and National Commission on this issue, as such there is no reason of interference in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
10. Heard the parties.
11. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Another since reported in (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 612. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sajid Ali Vs Manager Shri Ram, General Insurance Comp… on 2^nd February, 2018 , Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Mukesh Kumar dated 28^th April, 2016 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi & New India Assurance Company.. Vs. Trilochan Jane on 9^th December, 2009 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
12. In the judgment cited by counsel for the appellant FIR was instituted on the same day but there was delay in intimation to the insurance company, however, in present case there is delay both in lodging of FIR as well as intimation to the insurance company, as such the judgment cited is not applicable in facts and circumstances of present case.
13. It is an admitted fact that District Consumer Forum has held that the intimation about the theft of the vehicle was made to police station as well as insurance company much after theft of the vehicle which prevented police and insurance company in tracing and recovering the stolen vehicle. No satisfactory explanation has been given for late intimation to the Police and Insurance company. The delay in informing the police and insurance company is also a fundamental breach of conditions of policy of insurance as such this Commission does not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur requiring any interference by this Commission in this appeal.
14. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                           (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama