CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/09/2018

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Sh. Vinod

S/o Lala Ram Saxena,

R/o H. No. 43, Soniya Nagar,

Block-BA-1, Baihata Hajeepur,

Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001.                                                …..COMPLAINANT  

 VERSUS

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

4E/14, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110055.                                                               …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Mr. R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Vinod (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that the complainant got his e-rickshaw insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short OP) vide policy/covernote no. ZA715219 for the period 23.01.2017 to 22.01.2018.  The vehicle was stolen on 29.01.2017 from DL Park, Sai Baba Chowk, Seemapuri Delhi.  FIR was registered on 01.02.2017 under Section 379 IPC.  After lodging FIR, complainant approached office of the OP for “theft claim”.  In the last week of September, 2017 he received repudiation letter from OP.  Complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.12.2017 to OP and received no reply.  Hence instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of insurance till realization,  Rs, 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, Rs. 5,500/- towards cost of notice and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. OP appeared and contested the claim vide its reply.  Both sides filed evidence by way of affidavits.  Parties have also filed written arguments.  We have heard Sh. Pramod Kumar, counsel for complainant. 
3. Learned counsel for complainant was not able to satisfy us as to why FIR was registered after two days of the incident of theft.  We also asked him as to when the OP was informed about the incident of theft.  He replied that the information was given orally.  OP has taken a strong objection to delayed intimation of theft by complainant to it.  It is pleaded that theft took place on 29.01.2017 and intimation of theft was given to OP on 13.02.2017 i.e. after about 14 days.
4. In Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs. Rajaram and Ors. 2017 (1) CPR 391 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has observed thus:-

“Insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately after theft came to his knowledge.Mere intimating police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy.”

<>5.“Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle the claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that:

“The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it….   

Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 an insurance was taken out under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which their Lordships' observed:

“The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.”

7. Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract has to be read strictly. It was observed:

“In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”

8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09/12/2009 National Commission took the same view after discussing the judgment of Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) it was held that:

“The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time.It was held that compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted.”

9. Claim was repudiated by OP on another ground also which is that driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the incident.  The same was not shown to this Forum also. 
10. As per the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, policy documents have to be read strictly.  The repudiation is therefore justified for delay in intimation of theft to the insurer.  The complaint is dismissed.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this            Day of                       2019.