This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 1^st September, 2016 in consumer complaint No.10/2010.

2.       Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant firm insured its vehicle “Pajero” with the appellant insurance company (opposite party) for a sum of Rs.17,86,950/-. The insurance was valid from 8.2.2008 to 7.2.2009. Contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was stolen from the premises of the complainant on 10^th August, 2008 between 7.30 pm to 11.00 pm. The theft was intimated to the police immediately and FIR was registered on the basis of the written complaint dated 10.8.2008 addressed to the SHO, police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Information of theft was also given to the appellant insurance company vide letter dated 12.8.2008. Prior to the written intimation, telephonic information of theft was also given in the insurer on 11.8.2008. A surveyor was appointed. The complainant provided requisite documents to the surveyor as per his demand but his insurance claim was repudiated. Being aggrieved of repudiation of claim, the respondent filed a consumer complaint in the State Commission, Delhi.

3.       The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. According to the opposite party on receipt of intimation about the claim surveyor was appointed to investigate and assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.15,86,950/­- which was also accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. The complainant, however, was asked to produce all the three original keys of the vehicle but the complainant produced only two keys, which were new and unused. Therefore, a clarification was sought from the complainant. The complainant vide its letter dated 28.6.2009 misrepresented that only two keys were provided to them and both keys had been surrendered. The complainant also produced a fake letter purported to have been issued by M/s Excel Motors stating that new vehicle is supplied with a set of three ignition lock keys but not in subsequent issues. The appellant opposite party not being satisfied with the explanation held further enquiries and as per the investigation done by the investigators, it was confirmed that three keys as three complete set alongwith lock is supplied by the manufacturer. Thus, it was established that complainant had tried to mislead/misrepresent the opposite party. The opposite party, therefore, repudiated the insurance claim because of breach of condition No.8 of the insurance contract. It was also pleaded that the complainant had obviously made misrepresentation with regard to number of keys with a view to conceal that he had left behind the ignition key in the ignition lock of the vehicle which amounted to breach of condition No.4 of the insurance contract requiring the insured to take precaution to safeguard the vehicle.

4.       The State Commission on consideration of pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the insurance claim was not justified and amounted to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed as under: -

“OP is directed to pay to the complainant as under: -

1. An amount of Rs.15,18,908 (after deducting 15% as depreciation) w.e.f. 3.2.10 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

2. Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-

3. Litigation charges to the tune of Rs.20,000

                             Complaint is accordingly disposed of.”

5.       Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission the opposite party insurance company has preferred this appeal.  Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on two counts. Firstly it is contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per condition No.1 of the insurance policy the complainant insured was required to give intimation in writing to the appellant insurance company immediately upon occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and also to immediately lodge the complaint with the police. It is contended that admittedly the theft took place on 10.8.2008 and FIR was lodged with the police on 12.8.2008 as also the intimation of theft to the insurance company was given vide letter dated 12.8.2008 which make it clear that the insured had violated condition No.1 of the insurance contract which required the insured to give immediate information of theft to the police as well as the insurance company, as such the insurance company was well within its right to repudiate the claim.

6.       We do not find merit in the above contention. Undisputedly, the FIR pertaining to the theft was registered on 12.8.2008 and even the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company vide letter dated 12.8.2008 i.e. within two days of the theft. Hon’ble Supreme Court in while dealing with the import of condition No.1 of the insurance policy in the matter of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. 2017 (12) SCALE has observed as under:

          “10. Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any 7 claim and thereafter the insured has to give all such information and assistance as the company may require.

11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.

The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims 8 which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

7.       On bare reading of the above, it is clear that an insurance claim based upon the theft of a vehicle cannot be rejected in case of slight delay if the insurance claim is genuine. In the instant case delay in intimation is merely of two days. Perusal of the copy of the survey report of the independent surveyor M/s Bhola & Associates dated 19.2.2009 would show that the surveyor after investigation has found the insurance claim to be genuine and recommended to settle the insurance claim for a sum of Rs.15,86,950/- after adjusting the insurer’s liability. From the survey report it is evident that the insurance claim based on theft of the subject vehicle was found to be genuine by the surveyor. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. (supra), repudiation of insurance claim for violation of condition No.1 cannot be justified.

8.       Another contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that this is a case of violation of condition No.8 of the insurance contract as the respondent/complainant has tried to mislead the insurance company in respect of third ignition key of the car. Expanding on the argument learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has contended that the subject car was sold alongwith three sets of keys whereas in the instant case in support of the claim the respondent/complainant submitted only two keys. In order to explain non-production of third key, the complainant tried to mislead the surveyor and took a false plea that earlier also an attempt to commit theft of his car was made and the lock was tampered with. Therefore, he got the locks of the car replaced and at the time of replacement he was given two ignition keys. It is contended that the aforesaid act of the complainant being violative of condition No.8 of the insurance contract, the appellant insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.

9.       I do not find merit in the above contention. Appellant has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 31^st May, 2008 addressed by the complainant to the Office Incharge, Hauz Khas police station. This copy bears impression of the rubber stamp of the police station acknowledging the receipt of the original letter. On perusal of the above letter, I find that vide this letter the complainant had intimated the Office Incharge of police station Hauz Khas that on the night intervening 30^th & 31^st May, 2008 somebody had tried to steal the subject car by breaking the lock of left hand side of the vehicle completely. From this I find the explanation of the complainant that, he had got the lock changed after the aforesaid attempt of theft and he was given only two sets of keys of the replaced locks, stands established. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that the complainant had tried to practice fraud on the surveyor or he gave misleading information regarding loss of key.

10.     In view of the discussion above, I find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed and order of the State Commission is affirmed.