State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ifko-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. ... vs Smt.Abhilasha Sharma & Anr. on 13 March, 2015
.CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/523
Instituted on : 04.08.2014
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Manager, Address : First Floor,
Abhiyaan Complex, Supela, Bhilai
Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Through : Business Head, Branch Office Raipur (C.G.). ..... Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Abhilasha Sharma, Aged about 27 years,
W/o Shri Shardendu Sharma,
R/o : MIG 27, Nehru Nagar,
Post and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Satya Automobiles,
Through : Manager,
Address : Shiv Talkies Road, Old Bus Stand,
Post, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri P.K. Paul, for the appellant.
Shri J.P. Sharma, for the respondent No.1.
Shri Vijay Pandey, for the respondent No.2.
O R A L ORDER Dated : 13/03/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in CC/158/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint // 2 // and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.2,23,774.83 as assessed by the Surveyor, within a period of one month from the date of order, if the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period then the appellant (O.P.No.1) will also liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that : the respondent No.1 (complainant) purchased a Maruti Alto Car L.X.I. Model bearing registration No.C.G.10-FA-1813 from Ganpati Motors, Supela, Bhilai. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.No.1) under Package Policy for the period from 27.06.2010 to 26.06.2011 and the policy No. was M.I.11111150039596 & proposal No. was 16744875. On 11.09.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident near Narayanpur and report regarding the same was lodged by the brother in law of the respondent (complainant) on the same day. Due to accident, the vehicle was damaged and as the vehicle was not in running condition and Ganpati Motor , Durg Bhiai was at a very distance, therefore, as per instructions of the appellant (O.P.No.1), the respondent No.1 (complainant) parked the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10-FA- 1813 at Satya Motors, Bilaspur. The vehicle in question was completely damaged in the accident, therefore, the respondent No.1 (complainant) // 3 // submitted claim before the appellant (O.P.No.1) for the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, but till today the appellant (O.P.No.1) has not settled the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant). The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) sent notice to the respondent No.1 (complainant) to the effect that she is required to pay parking charge @ Rs.100/- per day and till 20.07.2012 remove the salvage otherwise it will be held that the salvage is not useful and the same will be disposed. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has parked the vehicle in question to the establishment of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) on the instructions of the appellant (O.P.No.1), therefore, the appellant (O.P.No.1) is liable to pay the said amount. The respondent No.1 (complainant) went to the office of the appellant (O.P.No.1) and requested through email and telephone to pay the compensation and also sent legal notice on 28.09.2011. The appellant (O.P.No.1) has not paid the claim amount to the respondent No.1 (complainant) and the parking charges to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and thus committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the respondent No.1 (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.No.1) filed written statement and averred that the appellant (complainant) has given the intimation regarding the accident after 61 days i.e. on 11.11.2010 and also informed that the respondent No.1 (complainant) got the vehicle registered on 26.10.2010 // 4 // i.e. after the accident. The appellant (O.P.No.1) further averred that at the time accident, the vehicle in question was not registered in the name of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and thus she violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, on account of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) was repudiated and intimation in this regard was also given to her. Thus, the appellant (O.P.No.1) has not committed any deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.
4. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) filed written statement and averred that the damaged vehicle of the respondent No.1 (complainant) was brought in the workshop of respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) on 10.11.2010 and till that date the vehicle was kept in the same condition and due to which the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was facing problems and there is less space for parking, therefore, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) sent notice to the respondent No.1 (complainant) and demanded Rs.100/- per day as parking charges and also intimated her to remove the salvage otherwise the same will be disposed.
5. The respondent (complainant) has filed documents. The documents are First Information Report, Certificate f Registration, Certificate of Insurance, registered notice dated 28.08.2011 sent by Shri // 5 // Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate to the appellants (OPs), acknowledgment, email sent by Shekhar Sharma to Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate, letter dated 12.07.2012 sent by Satya Automobiles to Abhilasha Sharma.
6. The appellant (O.P.No.1) has also filed documents. Documents are letter dated 21.12.2011 sent by the appellant (O.P.No.1) to the respondent, Motor Final Survey Report dated 29.03.2011 of Shri Naresh Kumar, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Valuer, Certificate of Insurance, Policy wordings for Private Cars.
7. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.No.1) has argued that the respondent No.1 (complainant) was using the vehicle in question without obtaining Registration Certificate and violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and suffers from jurisdictional error, irregularity and illegality, and is liable to be set aside. He further argued that the incident took place on 11.09.2010 and the matter was // 6 // intimated to the appellant (O.P.No.1) after 61 days i.e. after a long delay, which comes within purview of fundamental breach of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited 2014 ACJ 2421; judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Din Dayal v. National Insurance Company & Anr. I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC); Nisha vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2013) CPJ 6A (NC) (CN); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Thirunavukkarasu, I (2013) CPJ 32B (NC)(CN); Jahid Khan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 62 (NC); Niranjaj Kumar Yadav vs. National Insurance Company Limited, II (2011) CPJ 64 (NC); Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2013) CPJ 20A (NC) (CN); judgments of this Commission in Girish Yadav vs. Chief Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. And others (Appeal No.FA/13/69) decided on 24.12.2014; Smt. Meena Yadav vs. Chief Branch Manager & others, (Appeal No.FA/13/70) decided on 24.12.2014; Vikas Kumar Verma vs. Chief Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (Appeal No.511/2011) decided on 20.04.2012 and Dinesh Kumar Dewangan vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 214 decided by this Commission on 07.03.2011.
// 7 //
9. Shri J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (complainant) has argued that the matter was reported on the same day to the concerned Police Station and the matter was also intimation to the appellant (O.P.No.1) through mobile and fax. He further argued that the vehicle in question was purchased from respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Satya Automobiles, respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) assured the respondent No.1 (complainant) that it will got the vehicle registered in favour of the respondent No.1 (complainant). On being assurance given by the Satya Automobiles respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), the respondent No.1 (complainant) himself has not got the vehicle registered and he was in belief that the vehicle in question will be got registered by the Satya Automobiles, respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2). He further argued that respondent No.1 (complainant) did not violate any terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
10. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) has argued that the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) is entitled to receive parking charges in respect of the vehicle in question from the respondent No.1 (complainant).
11. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
// 8 //
12. Provisions of Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs thus :-
"39. Necessity for registration. - No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner or a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner :
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
13. Provisions of Section 43 (1) & (2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 run thus :-
"43. Temporary registration.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.
(2) A registration made under this Section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable:
Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted [with a body, or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner], the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the // 9 // registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow."
14. In Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited 2014 ACJ 2421,Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"14. Indisputably, a temporary registration was granted in respect of vehicle in question, which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle was without registration. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract."
15. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and the National Commission."
15. In Bhagwat vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited, IV (2014) CPJ 698 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that petitioner never applied before Regional Transport Officer for getting permanent registration of the vehicle and for failure to meet statutory requirement regarding registration of the vehicle, the complainant was not entitled to get claim even on non-standard basis.
// 10 //
16. In Din Dayal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. I (2013) CPJ 10 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"5. These arguments do not sound very convinced. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that the registration of the vehicle is mandatory requirement of law to drive the vehicle on any place or any other place. In support of his case, the State Commission has placed reliance upon the order of this Commission in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2012) CPJ 559. Consequently, there was violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
17. In Niranjan Kumar Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2011) CPJ 64 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"4................ On the contention of the present revision petitioner that the registration was already applied for and was pending with the registering authority, the State Commission has made the following categorical observations :
"If permanent registration cannot be done for the delay of the office of the registering authority then it must have temporary registration. Legality is the essence of all agreement. If it is violative of law, any contract or agreement is bound to fail, may there be otherwise expressed provision in the terms and condition of the agreement or not. The appellant failed to show any temporary registration number He also failed to show any receipt of the application for registration to prove that he had applied for registration before the mishap."
5. In view of this observation of the State Commission, the claim of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant that the registration was pending before the Registering Authority, looses all creditability."
// 11 //
18. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has filed a document i.e. Certificate of Registration. In the said document, it is mentioned that registration date is 26.10.2010 and fitness is valid upto 25.10.2025. It appears that the vehicle in question was registered on 26.10.2010 in the name of the respondent No.1 (complainant).
19. We have perused the First Information Report. From bare perusal of this document, it appears that the incident took place on 11.09.2010 and the registration date of the vehicle in question was 26.10.2010 i.e. after 45 days of the accident. It appears that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not registered and certificate of registration was not obtained by the respondent No.1 (complainant). It is violation of mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On the date of the accident, the respondent No.1 (complainant), was using the vehicle in question on public road without any registration certificate is not only an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but is also a breach of fundamental terms and conditions of the policy.
20. In the instant case, according to the appellant (O.P.No.1) the matter was not reported immediately to the appellant (O.P.No.1).
21. Now, we shall examine whether the respondent No.1 (complainant) has intimated the appellant (O.P.No.1) regarding the // 12 // incident belatedly, which comes within violation of terms and conditions of the policy ?
22. Hon'ble National Commission in Rang Lal (Deceased) through his legal representatives vs. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another (Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011) decided on 01.09.2011, in paragraph No.5 has observed as under :-
"5. In the above-mentioned case, relied upon by the State Commission, this Commission had observed inter alia as under :
In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the insurance company about the theft for a period of nine days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR after two days of the coming to know of the theft and nine days to the insurance company, can be fatal, as in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi (scrap dealer)."
23. In Budha Ganesh vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office, 2014 (1) CPR 370 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity which would justify our interference with the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This meritless revision petition, therefore, must be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
24. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through General Manager vs. Mahender Jat, I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 13 // "16. The law on this matter is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 as also the judgment in the matter of Dharambir vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP No.1542 of 2012 decided on 10.10.2013 and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009.
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 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."
// 14 //
25. In Kulwant Singh vs. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2015 (1) CLT 106, 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 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its duly, Constituted attorney, Manager vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, 2015 (1) CPR 360 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"5. It is not disputed that FIR was lodged by complainant on 31.07.2008 in which date of theft of vehicle has been shown as 26.07.2008. It is also not disputed that complainant intimated to opposite party vide letter dated 02.02.2009 in which it is mentioned that he lodged FIR and for these reasons could not give intimation to the opposite party. Thus , it becomes clear that there was day of five days in lodging FIR and delay of more than six months in intimation to insurance company. This Commission in First Appeal No.321/2005
- New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009 dismissed complaint as FIR was lodged after two days of theft and intimation to insurance company was given after nine days.
// 15 // Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchandrai, JT (2004) 8 SC 8 observed that delay in intimation to the insurance company in theft cases is fatal. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Parvesh Chander Chadha observed as under :
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed that the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.05.1995 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 19-09-1995 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 20.01.1995 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 made an endeavor 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 // 16 // 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."
27. In M/s. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagchand Saini, 2015 (1) CPR 383 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11. Further, this Commission observed as follows in the case "New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane" (supra) :-
"In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car from 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace / help in tracing the vehicle.
"12. In the above case, a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR and delay of 9 days in reporting the matter to the Insurance Company was found fatal and the Insurance Claim for the stolen truck was not allowed. In the said order, the National Commission extensively dwelt upon the word 'immediately' as stated in the conditions of the insurance policy by referring to the meaning of this word given in 'Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and Mitra's Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition and came to the conclusion that the word // 17 // "immediately" has to be construed, 'within a reasonable time' having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case..
13. A similar view has been expressed by this Commission and in many other orders passed in cases such as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar (supra), Ramesh Chandra vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (supra) and New India Assurance Co. vs. Dharam Singh, III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC). One of the latest judgments of the Commission has been issued on 15.09.2014 in RP No.3320/2014, Kulwant Singh vs. Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Other (supra) and a similar view has been upheld.
15. In so far as the contention of the complainant/respondent that a contract of insurance is contract of indemnity and the Insurance Company is bound to honour the claim, once the policy has been issued after charging the premium, it is stated that the said contract has been made subject to certain conditions. In case there is violation of such conditions, such violation has to be taken into account, while deciding the issue of indemnity."
28. In the instant case the incident took place on 11.09.2010 and First Information Report was lodged on the same day at concerned Police Station. The respondent No.1 (complainant) pleaded that the intimation regarding the incident was given to the appellant (O.P.No.1) on the same day through fax message, but no such copy containing intimation given, was filed by the respondent (complainant). The appellant (O.P.No.1) has specifically pleaded that the intimation regarding the incident was given by the respondent No.1 // 18 // (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.No.1) after 61 days from the incident.
29. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged on the same day, but intimation regarding the incident was given to the appellant (O.P. No.1) at a belated stage, therefore we find that the respondent No.1 (complainant) has violated the term of the insurance policy, which is fundamental breach of policy, therefore, the appellant (O.P. No.1) has a right to repudiate the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and the appellant (O.P. No.1) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent No.1 (complainant).
30. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, suffers from infirmity, irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
31. Hence, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P. No.1) and set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2014, passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (complainant) also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/03/2015 /03/2015 /03/2015