State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General ... vs Nitesh Prajapati on 11 August, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/362
Instituted on : 17.05.2017
Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office - Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .... Appellant (O.P.)
Vs.
Nitesh Prajapati, aged 25 years,
S/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapati,
R/o : Ekta Chowk, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) ......Respondent (Complainant)
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 Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri Ajeet Pandey, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 11/08/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.339/2014. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(a) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.39,040/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand and Forty) within a period of one month to the complainant along with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.07.2014 till realisation.
// 2 //
(b) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(c) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards advocate fees and cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle Passion Pro, bearing registration No.C.G.04-K.J-3814 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P. (Insurance Company). The complainant got insured his vehicle with the O.P. on 20.11.2013, thereafter he made payment of premium amount. The O.P. issued policy No.3005/21087674/10506/000. According to the insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the O.P. for the period from 20.11.2013 to 19.11.2014 for all risks. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.39,040/-. In the intervening night of 21.11.2013, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown miscreants from the compound of the house of the complainant. Besides the vehicle of the complainant, the vehicle of relative of the complainant, namely Yashwant Patel was also stolen on the same night by the unknown miscreants from the compound of the complainant. On being getting information regarding the incident, the brother of the complainant namely Rahul Prajapati immediately made complaint at Police Station, Pandri and Police took the application from the relative of the complainant and informed him that on taking action on his application, information was given to all Police Stations regarding the theft of the vehicle through wireless and as soon as the // 3 // vehicle is traced out, information will be given to him. As the complainant and his brother are not having sufficient knowledge, therefore, they have bonafidely believed on the version of the Police Station, Pandri. After giving intimation to the Police Station, Pandri, regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle, the complainant had immediately gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the O.P. and submitted claim. The O.P. informed the complainant that it is necessary that along with claim form original documents relating to vehicle and First Information Report are required to be submitted. When the complainant received such information, then he went to Police Station, Pandri on 29.11.2013 and demanded the copy of First Information Report which was lodged by him in respect of theft of vehicle in question, then the Police Station, Pandri provided the coy of the First Information Report to him. When the complainant perused the First Information Report, he came to know that Police Station, Pandri, did not immediately lodge First Information Report on the complaint of his relative Rahul Prajapati, but as per information given by Police Station, Pandri, on the date of complaint itself, intimation was regarding theft of vehicle was given to all Police Station through wireless. The complainant demanded the documents relating to intimation given to all Police Station through wireless, but the officer of the Police Station, Pandri told him that the documents will be given within one or two days. The complainant several times went to Police Station for obtaining the above documents, but the officer of the Police Station, Pandri, refused to provide the documents on the ground that the wireless // 4 // information is a confidential document and it cannot be provided to an individual person. Thereafter the complainant submitted an application under Section 6 of Right To Information Act before Public Information Officer, Office of Superintendent of Police, Raipur. The complainant submitted claim form along with documents in the office of the O.P., but the O.P. kept pending his claim unnecessarily for several month. The O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station belatedly, whereas in the insurance policy, no such condition is mentioned. Hence, the complainant filed instant complaint before the District Forum, and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The O.P. (Insurance Company) filed its written statement and averred that the vehicle Hero Honda Passion Pro CDRS bearing registration No.C.G.04-KJ-3814 was insured under Insurance Policy No.3005/85173957/00/B00 for the period from 20.11.2013 to 19.11.2014. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.39,040/-. The insurance policy was issuer under terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent, as mentioned in the insurance policy. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the contract of insurance is violated and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The complainant did not mentioned that as to on which date he contacted to the O.P. and also did not mention the name and particulars of the // 5 // employee to whom he contacted. In para 8(b) of the complaint, the complainant pleaded that in absence of the vehicle he suffered loss of Rs.30,000/- as he could not execute the business and demanded the above amount. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for commercial purpose. The complainant purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, therefore, he does not come within purview of consumer under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this count. Vide letter dated 24.03.2014, the O.P. informed the complainant that the vehicle in question was stolen on 21.11.2013, whereas the First Information Report to the concerned Police Station was lodged on 29.11.2013. Thus, the report has been lodged after 8 days of the incident of theft of the vehicle, which is violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant lodged First Information Report in concerned Police Station on 29.11.2013 i.e. after 8 days and gave intimation to the O.P. after 18 days. The complainant did not give intimation regarding the theft of the incident of the vehicle to the O.P., which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. On 08.06.2014, the O.P. demanded No Call record or VT record (Police GDR Entry), but the complainant did not give any response, therefore, the O.P. constrained to close the claim for non-compliance of condition No.1 of the policy wording. The complainant did not lodge report in concerned Police Station immediately and also did not intimate the Insurance Company immediately regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle. The complainant violated // 6 // terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, he is not entitled to get the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The facts of the complaint are complicated and for settlement of the same, elaborate evidence is required, the same cannot be settled under summary procedure. The complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed documents. Document Annexure 1 is Certificate of Registration bearing registration No.C.G.04-KJ-3814, Annexure 2 is Two Wheeler Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, Annexure 3 is First Information Report, Annexure 4 is letter dated 10.06.2014 sent by the complainant to The Chairman, Police Accountability Commission, Raipur, Annexure 5 is letter dated 10.06.2014 sent by the complainant to Public Information Officer, Office of Superintendent of Policy, Raipur (C.G.). The complainant has also filed postal receipt, letter dated 20.07.2014 sent by the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Pandri, Raipur to the complainant along with wireless message.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P. to pay the amounts to the complaianant, as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
// 7 //
6. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the report regarding incident of theft of the vehicle was given in the concerned Police Station after 8 days of the incident of theft of vehicle and the appellant (O.P.) was also intimated regarding incident of theft of the vehicle after 18 days, which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
7. Shri Ajeet Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has argued that the respondent (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Passion Pro bearing registration No.C.G.04-K.J.3814 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 20.11.2013 to 19.11.2014 for all risks. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.39,040/-. The vehicle was parked in the compound of the house of the respondent (complainant). In the intervening night of 21.11.2013, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown miscreants. The vehicle of relative of the respondent (complainant) was also stolen by unknown miscreants on the same night. Both the matter was reported to Police Station, Pandri and Police told the respondent (complainant) and his relative that the message regarding incident of theft of the vehicles, was given to all Police Stations through wireless. The respondent (complainant) // 8 // believed on the version of the Police and thereafter the respondent (complainant) submitted claim before the appellant (O.P.) and the appellant (O.P.) demanded copy of First Information Report from the respondent (complainant), then the respondent (complainant) applied for the copy of First Information Report. After getting the copy of First Information Report, he knew that the First Information Report was lodged by the Police Station, Pandri, on 29.11.2013, whereas his brother gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle in question o to the concerned Police Station immediately. The respondent (complainant) did not violate any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) has erroneously repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be dismissed.
8. We have heard counsels appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as impugned order passed by the District Forum.
9. The respondent (complainant) has pleaded that in the intervening night of 21.11.2013 his vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-JK-3814 was stolen by unknown miscreants from the compound of house of the respondent (complainant). Besides, the vehicle of the respondent // 9 // (complainant), vehicle of relative of the respondent (complainant) namely Yashwant Patel was also stolen by unknown miscreants on the same night. The brother of the respondent (complainant) namely Rahul Prajapati immediately made complaint at Police Station, Pandri and the Police took application from the relative of the respondent (complainant) and informed him that taking action on his application, information was given to all Police Stations regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle through wireless. As soon as the vehicle is traced out, information will be given to him. As the respondent (complainant) and his bother are not having sufficient knowledge, therefore, they have believed on the version of the Police. The respondent (complainant) had immediately gave intimation regarding incident of theft of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.) and submitted claim form before the appellant (O.P.). On the contrary, the appellant (O.P.) specifically pleaded that the First Information Report was registered by the concerned Police Station on 29.11.2013 and intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle was given to the appellant (O.P.) after 18 days of the incident of theft of the vehicle. The respondent (complainant) filed copy of First Information Report, which is marked as Annexure 3. In the First Information Report, the date and time of incident is mentioned as 21.11.2013 at about 2 to 5 A.M. and the date and time of giving intimation at Police Station is mentioned as 29.11.2013 at about 11.15 A.M. and the cause of delay in giving intimation is mentioned that the respondent (complainant) was searching the vehicle here and there.
// 10 //
10. According to the respondent (complainant), his brother Rahul Prajapati gave intimation to the Police Station, Pandri, regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle immediately. If the Police Station did not register First Information Report, the respondent (complainant) could have sent written report to the concerned Police Station or concerned Superintendent of Police regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that his brother submitted written report, which was taken by the Police Station, Pandri. If the Police did not register the case, then the complainant could submit written report, but the respondent (complainant) has not filed copy of written report.
11. The respondent (complainant) has filed copy of letter dated 10.06.2014 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the President, Police Accountability Commission, Raipur, in which it is mentioned that his brother lodged report before Police Station, Pandri, regarding incident of theft of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-K.J.3814, but the respondent (complainant) has not filed copy of written report. The respondent (complainant) obtained copy of information given regarding incident of theft of the vehicle in question to all Police Station by Police Station, Pandri, Raipur through wireless under Right to Information Act. According to the information given by Police Station, Pandri, the message was sent through wireless to other Police Stations on 02.12.2013. Had any report was lodged by the respondent (complainant) before Police Station, Pandri regarding incident of theft of the vehicle, then the Police could have // 11 // immediately sent information through wireless to other Police Stations. The Police Station, Pandri, sent information through wireless to other Police Stations on 02.12.2013, which shows that the report was made by the respondent (complainant) to the Police Station, Pandri, on 29.11.2013 i.e. after 8 days of the incident.
12. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that he gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.) immediately, but the respondent (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that he gave intimation to the appellant (O.P) regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle immediately. The appellant (O.P.) has specifically pleaded that the intimation was given to the appellant (O.P.) after 18 days of the incident.
13. In Bhartiya Samajik Vikas Samitee Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others, III (2017) CPJ 49 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - Insurance -
Theft of Vehicle - Delay in Intimation - Claim repudiated - District Forum dismissed complaint - State Commission dismissed appeal - Hence revision - Insured (Complainant Society) was duty bound to immediately inform police and Insurance Company respectively, in event of theft or any criminal act which may give rise to a claim under policy - Contract of insurance is a contract between insurer and insured, and they are strictly // 12 // governed by terms and conditions of policy - Complainant Society failed to discharge their obligation. Repudiation justified."
14. 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."
15. 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 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."
16. 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 // 13 // police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy."
17. 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."
18. 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."
19. 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 // 14 // 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 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.
// 15 //
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 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.
// 16 //
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 of IRDA circular purported issued subsequently in the year 2011."
20. 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 // 17 // the theft of the vehicle to the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the policy."
21. In In Revision Petition No.3548 - 3549 of 2013 - Ramesh Chandra vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 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."
22. In Jaspal Kaur & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, II (2015) CPJ 727 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 18 // "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 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 // 19 // 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 Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = (2008) 11 SCC 256, was also discussed."
23. 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 // 20 // 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 allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal."
24. 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 // 21 // 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."
25. 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 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 // 22 // 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. Thus, finding of the State Commission allowing the claim by the respondent is not justified."
26. 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."
// 23 //
27. The respondent (complainant) has not been able to prove that he gave written report immediately before Police Station, Pandri. Looking to the copy of First Information Report, it appears that the respondent (complainant) lodged First Information Report regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle before the concerned Police Station after 8 days of the incident and also given intimation to the appellant (O.P.) after 18 days , which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (complainant), is not entitled to get any amount under the insurance policy from the appellant (O.P.).
28. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.02.2017, passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is not sustainable in eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
29. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed and impugned order dated 13.02.2017, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
11 /08/2017 11 /08/2017 11 /08/2017