ORDER

 Per  Raj Kumar President

                             Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-36Q-0876 of the complainant duly insured with the opposite party was stolen on 14.9.2012 and FIR  no.372 was lodged on 15.9.2012 under Section 379 of IPC.   Accordingly, the complainant took steps for taking the insured amount but the claim was repudiated wrongly and illegally; hence this complaint.

2)                         The claim is contested by the opposite party    on the ground that complainant has violated the condition of the policy by giving late intimation as the theft took place on 14.9.2012 and intimation was done to the police  on 15.9.2012 while to  the insurance company on 17.9.2012.  

3)                          We have heard  the counsel for the parties and gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence on the file thoroughly. 

4)                         It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured on the date of theft.  However, the sole ground on which the claim has been repudiated, is delay of one day in intimating the insurance company.  The motorcycle was stolen on 14.9.2012 at about 7 PM .  The FIR  was lodged on the very next day i.e. on 15.9.2012   in the forenoon.   We think there is delay of  even less than one day.  The insurance company has invoked condition no.1 of the policy  on the plea that the complainant has not intimated immediately.   The counsel for the opposite party has relied upon   “New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal no. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009”.  We have perused the said judgment   but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, the vehicle was left totally unattended for two days.     There is no other evidence led by the opposite party as to whether the complainant was negligent or the theft took place on account of  negligence  of the complainant.  No doubt , since the policy has the force of contract,  the word ‘immediately’  should be construed in contractual sense  i.e. the intention of the parties has to be seen.  A mechanical  interpretation of the word will lead to absurdity and the rejection of the claim on baseless grounds is against the purpose of insuring  the vehicles.  Thus, the complainant has taken reasonable time  as it is natural for a person to search his vehicle rather to rush to police station or  the    insurance   company.     The  facts and circumstances of the case clearly go to show   that the  delay is not  of such a nature so as to repudiate the claim and as such  repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not justified.  

5)                          Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the insured declare value of the vehicle to the tune of  Rs. 35,600/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment.   Complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2200/-.  Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Announced

08.01.2015.             

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.