State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Satnam Singh Joginder Padda vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co ... on 6 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/15/813
Shri. Satnam Singh Joginder Singh Padda,
Aged about 45, Occupation: Transport,
Bima Complex, A-5010, Steel Market,
Kalamboli, Taluka: Panvel,
Navi Mumbai - 410218. ....... Complainants
Versus
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, 'C' Wing, Delphi Building,
Hiranandani Business Park,
Powai, Mumbai - 400 076. ....... Opponent
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
APPEARANCE:
For Complainant : Advocate Jyoti Ram
Advocate Manisha Kadam
For Opponent : Advocate Shaswat Vidyarthi
Advocate Asim S. Vidyarthi
JUDGMENT
(Date 06-03-2026)
SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 2 of 13
Per: Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
1. The Complainant had filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. It is the case of the Complainant that he was the registered owner of a TATA Motor Truck Trailer bearing Registration No. MH- 06-AQ-3313, which was duly insured with the Opposite Party under a comprehensive motor insurance policy for the period from 11.09.2008 to 10.09.2009, for an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.26,00,000/-. The insurance policy was valid and subsisting on the date of the incident.
3. According to the Complainant, on the night of 04.02.2009 at about 6.00 p.m, the insured vehicle was properly parked near Bima Complex, Steel Market, Kalamboli. The driver then left the place to meet his friend at Govandi on the prior intimation to the owner complainant. On the next morning, the driver found that the vehicle was missing. The incident was immediately brought to the notice of the Complainant, who along with the driver made efforts to trace the vehicle but it was not found.
4. As the complainant had to rush to Punjab for unavoidable urgent work ,the complainant asked the driver to report the fact to Police . Accordingly, the fact of missing of the vehicle was given to the Kalamboli Police Station on 05.02.2009 by the driver. As per the Complainant, the police initially advised to search the nearby PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 3 of 13 area and thereafter the complainant submits that on his return from Punjab a FIR was lodged with kalamboli Police station on 19.02.2009. The theft was also intimated to the Opposite Party insurance company by letter dated 06.02.2009. The complainant submitted that as the vehicle was under scheme of hypothecation a proper intimation to the financer -L & T Finance company was given by letter dtd. 04.03.2009.
5. It is further pleaded that after completion of investigation, the police submitted an "A Summary" report at JMFC Panvel court dtd 29.07.2009 issued under No.277 of 2009 certifying that the vehicle could not be traced. The said report and certificate were duly placed on record.
6. The Complainant contended that despite lodging a valid claim with the Opposite Party and submitting all requisite documents, the Opposite Party failed to settle the insurance claim. According to the Complainant, there was prolonged silence and inaction on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. Subsequently, the financer intimated about tracing of a vehicle, as there were heavy dues payable to financer,the financer was pressurising for repayment of loan .The complainant then repaid the loan amount to the financer i.e L&T Finance limited .The financer after repayment issued a letter with NOC and form 35 for recording termination of HPA /hypo on the records . The traced vehicle was taken into custody by the police on 22.02.2010 and later handed over to the Complainant. However, during inquiry by the Transport Authority, it was found that the chassis number of PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 4 of 13 the said vehicle was tampered with. The matter was referred to the forensic laboratory, which confirmed that the recovered vehicle was not the same vehicle that was insured and stolen.
8. The Complainant asserted that the original insured vehicle has never been recovered till date and that the case squarely falls under a genuine theft claim supported by police investigation and "A Summary" report.
9. It is the grievance of the Complainant that the Opposite Party failed to settle the claim alleging that the conduct of the Opposite Party amounts to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. The Complainant has relied upon several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Commission, inter alia:
a) Modern Insulators Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
b) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal
c) Amalendu Sahu vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
d) Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
e) Jitendra Sharma vs. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
f) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mannu to contend that delay in FIR, alleged negligence, or technical breaches cannot be a ground for outright repudiation of a genuine theft claim, and at the highest, the claim is required to be settled on a non-standard basis.
PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 5 of 13
11. On these pleadings, the Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to reimburse the amount of Rs. 26,00,000/-of the vehicle along with 12 % interest p.a , from 06.02.2009 till realisation compensation for mental agony, and costs of the complaint.
12. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opponent .The opponent appeared and filed its written version and had contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the Complainant has suppressed material facts from this Commission.
13. It is admitted that the subject vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party under a motor insurance policy for the relevant period. However, it is contended that the policy was subject to terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions mentioned therein, which are binding on the insured. It is the contention of Opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation.
14. The opposite party had contended that the complainant is not a consumer under consumer protection act 1986 Since they are admittedly commercial activity and this commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
15. The Opposite Party contended that the alleged theft of the vehicle was not reported to the police immediately. According to the Opposite Party, there was a substantial and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and which is in violation of the policy condition PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 6 of 13 no.1 requiring immediate intimation of loss to the police and the insurer.
16. It is further pleaded that such delay in intimation deprived the Opposite Party of an opportunity to conduct a timely investigation and to trace the vehicle, thereby causing prejudice to the insurer.
17. The Opposite Party has alleged that the Complainant failed to take reasonable care of the insured vehicle and did not safeguard the same properly, amounting to negligence on the part of the insured, which disentitles him from claiming insurance benefits hence the claim in question was repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter dtd 05/11/2009 invoking condition no.5 that insured should take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss.
18. With regard to the recovered vehicle, the Opposite Party has contended that the vehicle traced by the police and handed over to the Complainant creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the theft claim. According to the Opposite Party, the matter required detailed verification and forensic examination, and therefore the claim could not be treated as a total loss due to theft. The Opposite Party has further contended that the Complainant did not comply with all procedural requirements under the policy and failed to submit documents promptly, which resulted in delay in processing the claim.
19. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is contended that the claim was handled PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 7 of 13 strictly in accordance with the policy terms and applicable rules, and that no unfair trade practice has been adopted.
20. The Opposite Party has relied upon policy conditions, investigation reports, and correspondence on record to justify its action and has submitted that repudiation / non-settlement of the claim was legal and proper.The Opposite Party has prayed that the consumer complaint be dismissed with costs, as the Complainant is not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
21. Upon going through the complaint, Written version, Affadavit of Evidence, Written Arguments and documents and citations filed on record by both the parties and also hearing the oral arguments of the learned advocate for the Complainant and the Opposite Party following points arose for our consideration. We have recorded our findings there on for the reasons stated below -
Sr. Points Findings
No.
1. Whether the complainant is a In
"consumer"? Affirmative
2. Whether the complaint is barred by In negative limitation?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service In and unfair trade practice on the part Affirmative of the Opposite Party?
4. What order? As per final order PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 8 of 13 REASONS As to point no.1:
22. The Opposite Party had raised a preliminary objection that the Complainant is not a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the transaction in question was for commercial / investment purpose. The objection raised by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained. The Complainant had relied on the citation of The Hon'ble Supreme court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Harsolia Motors & Ors., wherein it is categorically held that taking an insurance policy is not a commercial activity and a policy is obtained only for indemnification of loss. Merely because the insured asset is used for commercial purpose, the insured does not cease to be a consumer. Hence, the Complainant squarely falls within the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." Therefore, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
As to point no.2:
23. The Opposite Party had contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The Complainant had pleaded that the complaint is well within limitation as the cause of action is continuing.
24. Though the opposite party in their Written version had contended that the claim is rejected and communicated by letter Dtd 24/08/2009 and 29/09/2009. However the case of the complainant is that he had never received any such alleged letters.
Also the opposite party had filed said letters on record along with PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 9 of 13 receipt but nothing is filed on record to show that they were duly served to the complainant . However the complainant had filed on record the letter dated 02/06/2015 which was duly received by the opposite party to settle the claim. Also the complainant had sent a notice dated 24/07/2015. The opposite party had not decided the genuine claim. Hence the cause of action is continuous. The Complaint is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
As to issue no.3 :
25. The Complainant had placed on record the copy of the insurance policy showing that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party for the relevant period and that the policy was valid and subsisting on the date of the alleged incident. The factum of theft has been supported by police records, including FIR and the "A Summary" report submitted by the police after investigation.
The Opposite Party has not disputed the existence of the insurance policy nor the fact that the theft was reported. The police investigation has concluded that the vehicle could not be traced and the theft was genuine. Mere recovery of another vehicle with tampered chassis number, which on forensic examination was found not to be the insured vehicle, does not disprove the theft of the original insured vehicle.
26. In view of the documentary evidence and absence of contrary proof, this Commission holds that the Complainant has successfully established that the insured vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of a valid insurance policy.
PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 10 of 13
27. Though the Opposite Party has strongly relied upon the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and delay in intimating the insurer to contend breach of policy conditions. However, the Complainant has explained that immediately after noticing the theft, efforts were made to trace the vehicle and the police were informed, who advised to search the nearby area before registering the FIR.
28. It is well settled that delay in lodging FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground to repudiate a genuine theft claim, particularly when the theft is otherwise proved and supported by police investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that repudiation of claims on purely technical grounds, such as delay in intimation, is unjustified when the claim is otherwise genuine.
29. In the present case, no material prejudice caused to the Opposite Party due to such delay has been demonstrated. Hence, the delay does not amount to a fundamental breach disentitling the Complainant from indemnification.
30. The Opposite Party has alleged negligence on the part of the Complainant in safeguarding the vehicle. However, except for making bald assertions, no cogent evidence has been produced to establish gross negligence or willful breach of policy conditions.
31. The Opposite Party has attempted to justify non-settlement of the claim on the grounds of delay in FIR, alleged negligence, and doubts regarding recovery of the vehicle. As discussed earlier, none of these grounds amount to a fundamental breach of policy conditions.
PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 11 of 13
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal has categorically held that in cases of theft, breach of policy conditions not germane , particularly , nature of use of vehicle cannot be looked into. Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. Claim allowed by state commission on non standard basis to the extent of 75% which in turn is upheld by National commission.
33. Therefore, this Commission finds that the Opposite Party has failed to establish that its action of non-settlement was justified. The Opposite Party, despite receiving intimation, police papers, and other documents, failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time. Compelling the Complainant to approach this Commission, prolonged non-settlement of a valid insurance claim amounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
34. Although the theft of the vehicle is proved, this Commission finds that certain procedural lapses, such as delay in FIR and intimation, cannot be completely ignored. In such circumstances, settled judicial precedent provides that the claim may be settled on a non-standard basis.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahu vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has held that in cases involving breach of policy conditions not fundamental in nature, the insurer is liable to settle the claim up to 75% of the admissible claim.
PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 12 of 13
36. Applying the said principle, this Commission holds that the Complainant is entitled to settlement of the claim on a non- standard basis to the extent of 75% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle. In view of the aforesaid discussion the opposite party is directed to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant in respect of the stolen vehicle on a non-standard basis to the extent of 75% of Rs.26,00,000/- Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle, as per the insurance policy i.e Rs 19,50,000/-. The Opposite Party shall further pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Accordingly, we answer issue no.3 in Affirmative.
ORDER
1. The Consumer Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite Party is directed to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant in respect of the stolen vehicle on a non-standard basis to the extent of 75% of Rs. 26,00,000/-Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle, as per the insurance policy.i.e Rs. 19,50,000/-.
3. The Opposite Party shall further pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.
PVM+RRP SC/27/CC/15/813 Page 13 of 13
4. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the Complainant towards costs of the complaint.
5. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
[Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member PVM+RRP