Order No. 10 dt. 05/07/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant paid insurance premium to o.p. and the policy was issued and in the policy it was promised by o.p. to indemnify loss if any occurred to the vehicle no.WB-23B / 1636 between 29.12.12 and 28.12.13 during which the risk period covered. The complainant loaded the vehicle with 270 cartoons of zarda at Guwahati for transportation and delivery at Ranchi. The said vehicle along with consignment did not reach the destination. Because of such incident the complainant sustained monetary loss of Rs.5,50,000/-. The complainant lodged an FIR and subsequently the complainant lodged the claim to o.p. for settlement of the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- but o.p. repudiated the claim of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant prayed for direction upon the o.p. for payment of the loss sustained by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- and cost of mental agony and harassment for Rs.15,000/- and cost of conveyance for Rs.5500/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with o.p. and the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. On getting an intimation on 12.12.13 o.p. immediately provided the claim no.1344576 to the insured and appointed an investigation. The complainant i.e. insured provided the intimation after a lapse of around 14 days from the date of loss and violated the policy condition no.1 and 5. The complainant lodged an FIR at the police station making allegation against the driver of the insured vehicle Rafik Ali for stealing the vehicle and thereby the police started a case for criminal breach trust u/s 407 IPC. The criminal breach of trust was not covered under the subject policy. The complainant neglected to inform the o.p. immediately after the discovery of alleged theft to enable them to trace out the vehicle by their own source. A toll free number was provided to the insured but through the said toll free number the complainant could have informed the said fact also. On the basis of the said fact o.p. repudiated the claim of the complainant. There wan no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and as such, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the policy with o.p.?
- Whether the complainant informed the insurance company immediately after the alleged occurrence of theft in respect of the insured vehicle?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that during the subsistence of the policy with o.p. the consignment was sent from Guwahati to Ranchi on the way, the vehicle did not reach to the destination for which the complainant informed the o.p. The o.p. in spite of getting such information and though the policy was valid at the relevant point of time in respect of loss, damage, etc. of the insured vehicle o.p. did not entertain the claim of the complainant for which the complainant had to file this case praying for reliefs. The complainant after receiving the repudiation letter from o.p. requested the o.p. for reconciliation of the stand of repudiation but no effective step was taken from the side of o.p. In order to fortify the claim of the complainant the FIR lodged immediately after the said incident was provided to the insurance company, but in spite of receiving all necessary documents o.p. failed to pay the compensation to the complainant for which the complainant had to file this case on the allegation of deficiency in service.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. The complainant immediately after the occurrence of the incident did not inform of the said fact was informed to o.p. 14 days after the alleged occurrence. If o.p. would have been informed the said fact immediately after the incident o.p. could have tried to trace out the vehicle in question by engaging their own source. Apart from the said fact from FIR it is crystal clear that the case was started u/s 407 against the driver of the vehicle i.e. the criminal breach of trust which does not fall within the policy condition as provided by o.p. to the complainant. In view of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an undisputed fact that the vehicle in question was insured with o.p. insurance company and the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. The complainant has stated that after the loss of the said vehicle an intimation was given to the police station. But in the FIR the allegation was levelled against the driver of the said vehicle i.e. the driver was in collusion in the said alleged incident. It is also found from the materials on record that the information regarding the said incident was given to o.p. on 12.12.13 i.e. 14 days after the said incident. The vehicle was insured with o.p. was not disputed but the same was insured subject to compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company clearly stated that any intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given immediately in fact it was belated. On the basis of the said fact it is crystal clear that there was breach of violation of the policy condition no.1 and 5 which speaks of the fact that notice shall be given in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.
The condition 5 of the said policy states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it efficient condition and the company shall have at all time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver of employee of the insured.
Here in this case, the entire allegation was levelled against the driver of the vehicle and the case u/s 407 criminal breach of trust was started. The insurance policy covers theft not the criminal breach of trust. From the materials on record we find that delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the vehicle for 14 days was be a violation of condition of the policy, as it deprives the insurer over valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and trace / help in tracing the vehicle.
On the basis of the said fact and circumstances of the case and also relying on the decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 552 (NC) wherein it was held that delay in reporting to insurer about theft of vehicle would be a violation of condition of policy and therefore we hold that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.260/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
