State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Santosh Kumar Paikra vs Universal Sompo General Insurance ... on 3 May, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2016/784
Instituted on : 19.01.2017
Santosh Kumar Paikra,
S/o Late Bahadur Singh, Aged 37 years,
Profession - Government Service
(Home Department Chhattisgarh),
R/o - Kashiram Nagar, Sector - 1, Plot No.1,
Room No. 132, Raipur (C.G.)
Permanent resident - Village - Bishunpur,
Police Station - Jaynagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur,
District Surguja (C.G.) ..... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through : Branch Manager,
Address : Shriram Nagar, T.V. Tower Road, Raipur,
Post, P.S., Tehsil Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ......Respondent/O.P.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant (complainant).
Shri K.B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent (O.P.).
ORDER
DATED : 03/05/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.75/2015. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of Bolero S.L.X. vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-HB-7806 and the same was insured with the O.P. for the period from 13.07.2013 to 12.07.2014. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.4,00,000/-. The premium amount Rs.12,223/- was paid by the complainant to the O.P. On 23.07.2013, the vehicle in question was parked in front of house of Vinod Kumar Paikra, who is brother in law of the complainant. In the intervening night of 22.7.2013, some unknown person had stolen the vehicle. The report was lodged in Police Station Jaynagar on 23.07.2013 where Offence No.130/2013 was registered. The vehicle could not be traced out, therefore, Khatma No.18/2013 dated 26.12.2013 was submitted before the concerned Magistrate. Then, the complainant submitted claim form on 04.04.2014 through email before the O.P., but the O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant. The legal notice was sent by the complainant to the O.P., even then the claim of the complainant was not settled by the O.P. The O.P. committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the complainant did not inform the O.P. through mobile regarding incident // 3 // of theft of vehicle. The intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was not given immediately to the O.P. The intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to the O.P. after 9 months from the date of incident of theft of the vehicle, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The O.P. has righty disallowed the claim of the complainant and by doing so, the O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed document. Document A-1 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-HB-7806, A-2 is Policy Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, A-3 is email, A-4 is letter dated 15.11.2014 sent by Superintendent of Policy, Surajpur to the complainant, A-5 is First Information Report, Annexure 6 is Crime Details Form, A-7 is Final Report, A-8 is legal notice dated 23.03.2015 sent by Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate to the O.P., A-9(1) is letter dated 03.04.2015 sent by the O.P. to Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta (Advocate), A- 9(2) is letter dated 30.12.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, A-9(3) is envelope.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document D-1 is Policy Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, D-2 is terms and conditions of policy, D-3 is letter dated 03.04.2015 sent by the O.P. to Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta (Advocate), D-4 is letter dated 30.12.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, D-5 is letter dated 21.07.2014 sent by O.P. to the // 4 // complainant, D-6 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-04-HB-7806
6. Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.-04-HB- 7806 and the same was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 13.07.2013 to 12.07.2014. The vehicle was parked in the house of brother in law of the appellant (complainant), Vinod Kumar Paikra , but in the intervening night of 22.07.2013, some unknown person had stolen the vehicle. The matter was immediately reported to the Police Station, Jainagar. It appears that the appellant (complainant) had lodged report regarding the theft of the vehicle immediately without delay and intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the respondent (O.P.) through mobile immediately. The appellant (complainant) submitted claim form along with relevant documents to the respondent (O.P.), but the respondent (O.P.) did not give any response thereto. According to the respondent (O.P.) intimation regarding repudiation of the claim was sent to the appellant (complainant), but no such notice was received by the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.) did not file any document to prove that such notice was sent by the respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (O.P.) committed deficiency in service by repudiating genuine claim of the appellant (complainant). Learned District Forum, // 5 // has erroneously dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). If the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.) belatedly, even then the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation on non- standard basis. He placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Reeta Devi, 2014 (2) C.G.L.J. 10 (CCC) decided by this Commission on 11.12.2013.
7. Shri K.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that merely lodging First Information Report in the concerned Police Station, is not sufficient compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was mandatory for the appellant (complainant) to send notice in writing to the respondent (O.P.) immediately upon the occurrence or accident and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. In the instant case, the incident of theft of the vehicle took place in the intervening night of 22.07.2013 whereas intimation regarding the same was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.) on 04.04.2014. Letter dated 30.12.2014 and 03.04.2015 were sent to the appellant (complainant) intimating that his claim was repudiated by the respondent (O.P.) on the ground of delayed intimation. The respondent (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any // 6 // infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roop Lal Dangi, II (2017) CPJ 83 (NC).
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as impugned order.
9. The appellant (complainant) has filed Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-HB-7806 and insurance policy. On the basis of above documents, it appears that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-HB-7806 and it was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 13.07.2013 to 12.07.2014. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.4,00,000/- and premium of Rs.12,223/- was paid by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.).
10. The appellant (complainant) has filed copy of First Information Report (F.I.R.) and Final Report. In the First Information Report, it is mentioned that the incident of theft of the vehicle in question took place in the intervening night of 22.07.2013 and the matter was reported to the Police on 23.07.2013. It appears that the matter was reported to the concerned Police Station immediately.
// 7 //
11. Now we shall examine whether merely lodging report in Police Station, is sufficient compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy ?
12. The counsel for the appellant (complainant) has argued that intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.) through mobile, but the appellant (complainant) did not mention in his complaint that intimation was given to the respondent (O.P.) through mobile.
13. In Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roop Lal Dangi (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "There is no mention in claim form that any telephonic information on mobile phone was given by complainant to any official of Insurance Company. Seven days delay is a huge delay in case of theft of vehicle because during such a long period vehicle can be dismantled and sold or it can be taken out of territorial boundary of country which would make the recovery of vehicle impossible."
14. In Ravinder Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2017 (1) CPR 313 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Insurance - Theft of Tractor - District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay 50% of insured amount along with 12% interest. Petitioner /complainant failed to adhere to terms and // 8 // conditions between parties in asmuch as immediate intimation of theft was not given to respondent company or Police thereby violating terms of policy. Intimation regarding alleged theft was given to Police only after the lapse of more than 25 days and to respondent / insurance company after one year and ten days. No any infirmity in order of State Commission."
15. 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."
16. In Prabhat Khanna (deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2017 (1) 480 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Delay in intimation about incident to insurance company may vitiate insurance cover."
17. In Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Naresh Walia, III (2016) CPJ 408 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - Insurance - Theft - Delay in intimation - Claim repudiated - Alleged deficiency in service - Report of theft must be lodged immediately. Intimation to Insurance Company must be given immediately. Breach of policy conditions established. Repudiation justified."
// 9 //
18. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jaina Construction Company & Others, 2016 (4) CPR 291 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11. On reading of the above, it is clear that in the event of any accidental loss or damage to the insured vehicle, it was contractual obligation of the insured complainant to immediately inform the opposite party insurance company. Admittedly, the complainant has violated the said condition by delaying the intimation of theft to the insurance company for about five months. Thus, in our considered view, the complainant has violated the above noted stipulation of the insurance contract. Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if // 10 // not possible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid position in law, the repudiation of insurance claim by the opposite party is justified. Perusal of the order of the State Commission would show that State Commission was impelled to allow the claim on non-standard basis in view of para 12 of judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) which reads as under :-
"in the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the // 11 // insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft."
12. On bare reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that para 12 records the arguments of the complainant of the said case and it is not the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nitin Khandelwal (supra). The ratio of said judgment is in para 13, which reads as under :
"In the instant case, the State Commission allowed the claim only on non-standard basis, which has been upheld by the National Commission. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case, the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis.
13. Counsel for the complainant has contended that irrespective of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra), the repudiation is not justified in view of the circular of IRDA dated 20.09.2011. On perusal of record, we find that claim of the petitioner was repudiated vide letter dated 19.10.2010 prior to the issue of aforesaid circular. Therefore, the repudiation cannot be terms as violation // 12 // of IRDA circular purported issued subsequently in the year 2011."
19. In Revision Petition No.1782 of 2015 - Siddhanth Yadav vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 30.07.2015, Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :
"9. We find that the District Forum has extensively dealt with the issue regarding the delay in the petitioner informing the respondent in their order as reproduced in paragraph 4 above. The State Commission in their order have also exhaustively dealt with the contention of the counsel that in view of the IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011 the respondent should not have repudiated the claim on the ground of delay alone unless the reasons for delay are specifically ascertained and the insurers have satisfied themselves that the delayed claims would otherwise have been rejected even if reported on time. The State Commission held that this circular was merely an advisory to the insurance companies. It will not overwrite a specific condition mentioned in the policy. Unless the insurance companies incorporate the changes in the policy document, delay will be settled to a claim of theft of vehicle as per the existing terms and conditions of the policy.
10. We find that the Petitioner has nowhere explained the reasons for the delay in informing the respondent by giving a written notice regarding the theft of the vehicle to the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the policy."
20. In In Revision Petition No.3548 - 3549 of 2013 - Ramesh Chandra vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited // 13 // and another, decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 13.01.2014, Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has committed a grave error in failing to appreciate that during police investigation, one Akbar was arrested who confessed that he had stolen the truck. As such, there can be no doubt about the correctness of the story of the theft of the truck. This factor, in our view, is of no avail to the petitioner particularly when he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by failing to report the theft to the police as well as the insurance company within a reasonable time. Even the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) is of no avail to the petitioner for the reason that aforesaid judgment is based on its own peculiar facts. In that case, the vehicle insured was a personal vehicle but it was used for hire which according to the insurance company was violative of the terms and conditions of the policy. The aforesaid misuser which was subject matter of the Amalendu Sahoo's case had no casual link to the theft. However, in the instant case, the violation committed by the petitioner is grave because by failing to intimate the theft to the police and the insurance company, the petitioner has prevented those authorities from taking prompt action to locate and recover the truck."
21. In Jaspal Kaur & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, II (2015) CPJ 727 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 14 // "3. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739, decided on 17.08.2010, was pleased to hold :
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which give rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the Insurance Company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer Foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay // 15 // compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
4. Again this Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) = in First Appeal No.321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009 took the same view and discussed the word immediately :
"As per Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately is defined as under :
(1) The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonable requisite for doing the thing.
As per Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word immediately means :
Immediately. Without interval of time, without delay, straightaway, or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is usually construed to mean within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of the circumstances of the case, although strictly, it means, not deferred by any period of time. The words immediately and forthwith have generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression within a reasonable time and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay."
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. 23, para 1618, p. 1178 where it meant immediately is to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.
The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time. It was held that compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted. The case of National Insurance Company // 16 // Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = (2008) 11 SCC 256, was also discussed."
22. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Gurshinder Singh & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 750 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"6. Admittedly, there is delay of 52 days in intimation to Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Trilochan Jane, in which on account of delay of 2 days in lodging FIR and delay of 9 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of vehicle, claim of complainant was dismissed. He has also placed reliance on I (2014) CPJ 29 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar, in which claim was dismissed on account of delay of 35 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of vehicle, though, FIR was lodged on the same day. He also placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in C.A. No.6739 of 2010, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, in which orders of Fora below including National Commission were set aside and complaint was dismissed as vehicle was stolen between 18.1.1995 to 20.1.1995 and FIR was lodged on 20.1.1995, but intimation to Insurance Co. was given on 22.5.1995. In the aforesaid case, it was also observed that complainant was duty- bound to inform about theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company immediately after the incident.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that on account of delay of 52 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of insured vehicle, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in // 17 // allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal."
23. In Sarfarjudeen v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (2015) CPJ 748 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"5. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which would justify our interference with it. The petitioner has not placed any material before us to take a different view. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the revision petition, which is liable for dismissal. While on the subject we would like to mention that in addition to what is observed by the State Commission, we may note that there was delay of four days in lodging FIR and admittedly, the intimation about the information of theft was sent to the Insurance Company after a month of the theft. The terms of the policy require immediate action in such cases and as per settled law, such delay in the case of theft would result in outright repudiation of the claim because delay in lodging the FIR or intimating the Insurance Company would be disastrous to the interests of the Insurance Company and the same constitutes violation of a fundamental condition of the insurance contract. On this count also we are convinced that the claim of the petitioner was liable for repudiation. In view of above, the revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs."
24. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahender Jat, I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
17. We have considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound // 18 // to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident.
Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under :-
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 10.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajinder Singh Pawar, but this explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an edeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
18. The said judgment has been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Dharambir v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). From this it is evident that the issue raised in this revision petition is no more res integra. Admittedly the intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company 21 days after the theft.
// 19 // Thus, finding of the State Commission allowing the claim by the respondent is not justified."
25. In Kulwant Singh vs. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, IV (2014) CPJ 350 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "in terms of policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It is further observed that such a delay can be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across the border of the country or could have been dismantled and sold to the scrap dealer. Thus, by delaying the information of theft to the police, the petitioner insured had acted against the interest of the insurer and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent Insurance Company."
26. In the instant case, the incident of theft of the vehicle of the appellant (complainant) took place in the intervening night of 22.07.2013. The respondent (O.P.) has filed copy of letter dated 03.04.2015 (Document A-9 (1) and letter dated 30.12.2014 (document No.A-9 (2) sent by it to the appellant (complainant). In both the letters, it is mentioned that the appellant (complainant) gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the respondent (O.P.) on 04.04.2014 // 20 // i.e. after near about 8 months. The appellant (complainant) himself in para 4 of his complaint averred that he sent the claim request to the respondent (O.P.) through email on 04.04.2014. As per Condition No.1 notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.
27. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) gave intimation regarding theft of the vehicle in question to the respondent (O.P.) on 04.04.2014 i.e. after near about 8 months from the date of incident, which is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant).
28. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity and illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
29. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
03/05/2017 03 /05/2017 03 /05/2017