Passed  by  Shri  Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant has filed present complaint case u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the arbitrarily rejection and repudiation of insurance claim on the ground of delay in registration of FIR and intimation and the vehicle was parked in open ground and kept unattended at the time of theft and thereby claiming the IDV value of Rs.14,85,000 along with interest of 9% with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs.11000/-.

The story in short is as under :-

2. The complainant is an owner of Tipper MH-40-Y-285 and used the said vehicle for construction activity and insured under the policy bearing no. 181300/312018/4071 for the period between 1.2.2018 to 31.1.2019 under the insurance policy. On dated 28.12.2018 at night the vehicle was stolen by unknown person. The complaint was lodged on dated 23.1.2019 after searching the vehicle up to 15 days as per the direction given by police station Jaripatka, Nagpur under Crime No.73/2019, u/s.379 of IPC and the intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the insurance company on the same day and filed insurance claim along with relevant documents.  But the O.P. has arbitrarily rejected the insurance claim of the complainant on dated 7.2.2020 for the reason that the insured vehicle key was in the possession of Mr. Prakash Sing Rajput who was neither owner of the insured vehicle and the vehicle was parked in open ground and kept the vehicle unattended at the time of theft, thereby breach of policy condition no.5 and the intimation of theft and registration of FIR was given delayed on dated 23.1.2019 for the alleged accident. The alleged vehicle was stolen on dated 28.12.2018 by breaching policy condition No.1.  The complainant vehicle is met wiith an accident and the time required to search the vehicle were bonafide reason for the delay in the registration of FIR and intimation to the insurance company. Therefore rejection of the claim does amount to deficiency in service.
3. The O.P. filed reply and submitted that complainant was carrying his business of constructions with the help of a Tipper with his friend Mr. Prakash Singh Rajput therefore the purpose of the business is commercial purpose and therefore present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant alleged that he mates with an accident in the month of June-2018 was the ground but has not filed any supporting documents with that effect.  It is obligatory on the part of the complainant to give intimation of the theft immediately and lodge a complaint with the police station but the O.P. failed to comply with the terms and policy conditions, therefore it amounts to breach of policy condition and repudiation of claim on the grounds does not amount to deficiency of service therefore complainant's complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
4. Advocate Ms.Neeta Chandak counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant filed an insurance policy as a document No.4 which clearly discloses the IDV value of Rs.14,85,000/-. The complainant filed registration particulars which clearly disclose the date of registration of Tipper is dated 16.5.2012.  The complainant filed a copy of the FIR on document No.14. dated 23.1.2019 and the final 'A' summary report of JMFC court dated 5.7.2019 on page No.41. The complainant has filed a discharged summary of Alexis Multispecialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd. for treatment of complainant accident of dated 3.6.2018 to 8.6.2018 as documents no.16.  The complainant after search of vehicle and recover from accident lodge FIR at Jaripatka Police station, Nagpur and intimation of theft was given to the insurance company on the same date therefore the reason for the delayed registration for FIR and intimation is bonafide and the Mr. Prakashsingh Rajpoot has taken all precautions at the time of parking of vehicle there, therefore rejection of the claim by O.P. does amount to deficiency of service.
5. Advocate Mr. Yogesh Rahate counsel for the O.P. argued that the delay is registration in FIR and intimation does amount to breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant does not amount to deficiency of service.

                                                            REASONING

6. The basic dispute in respect of repudiation of the claim is delayed registration of FIR and intimation and unattended vehicle at the time of theft.  It is a general practice that the police station officer does not register the FIR of theft of a vehicle at first instance and advised to search the vehicle in a nearby locality and nearby state to avoid multiplicity of documentation after tracing of vehicle, therefore the complainant after recovery of personal accident and search of the vehicle lodged the complaint on dated 23.1.2019 with Jaripatka police station, Nagpur resulted in the registration of FIR bearing No.73/2019, u/s.379 of IPC  and intimation to that effect has been given on same date, therefore the reason for delayed registration of FIR and intimation has bonafide.  The complainant's friend has taken all precautions while parking the vehicle before the incident of theft by removing keys by locking the cabin.  There is no evidence available on record that the complainant's vehicle was not properly attended at the time of theft by recording statements of the persons of the nearby area of where the theft of the vehicle occurred. 
7. On the ground of bonafide delay in FIR and intimation does not breach the total conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation on non-standard basis of claim of policy that is 70 % of IDV value of the Tipper truck of Rs.14,85,000/-amounted to Rs.10,39,500/-with compensation of Rs.20,000/- with the cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- as per following order.

                                                      ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. O.P. is directed to pay the 70 % of IDV value of Tipper that is Rs.10,39,500/- to the complainant towards insurance claim under the policy bearing No. bearing no. 181300/312018/4071.
3. O.P. is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith cost of litigation of  Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.