State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sunder Singh Through Lrs. & Anr. on 7 November, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 13.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.11.2025
REVISION PETITION NO. 1608 OF 2017
(From the order dated 01.03.2017 in F.A. No. 603/2016 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
United India Insurance Company Limited
(Through its Manager)
Regional Ofifice-1,
8th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building,
18, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001 Petitioner
Versus
l.A. Sushila W/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh
Resident of Village Akehari Madanpur
Tehsil Salhawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana
B. Dinesh Sharma S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh
R/o Village Akehari Madanpur
Tehsil Salhawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana
C. Neeraj Sharma S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh
R/o Village Akehari Madanpur
Tehsil Salhawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana
D. Pooja D/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh
W/o Sh.Mahesh Kumar
R/o 118, Babroli,
Distt. Rewari, Haryana
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited,
(through its Manager)
SCO 3, 2nd Floor, near Punjab and Sind Bank,
Brass Market, Rewari, District Rewari,
Haryana Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 1 of21
For the Petitioners Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Advocate
(through V.C.)
For the Respondents Mr. Manmohan Aggarwal, Advocate for R-l
Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Advocate for R-2
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 01.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 603/2016 in which order dated 18.05.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 126/2015 was challenged.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum, the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents before the State Commission in,FA/603/2016 and Complainants before the District Forum in Complaint No. ! 126/2015. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 26.07.2017. Parties i i filed Written Arguments on 13.12.2023 (Petitioner), 12.09.2018 (Respondent-
1) and 19.08.2025 (LRs of Respondent-1) respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complaint, and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
Sh. Sunder Singh/Complainant (since deceased) was owner of vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No. HR-63B-1664. The vehicle was insured with the Petitioner/Insurance Company for a period from RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 2 of21
-r 08.11.2011 to 07.11.2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.4,83,600/-. The vehicle was stolen on 09.01.2012 in the area of Bansur, District Alwar. The Complainant informed the Police immediately. The Complainant also lodged FIR in the Police Station.
The police submitted the untraced report in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Behrod, District Alwar. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did not pay the claim. Hence, the Complainants filed Complaint before the District Commission. Vide its order dated 18.05.2016, the District Forum allowed the Complaint.
4. Petitioner/Insurance Company preferred an Appeal against the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide its order dated 01.03.2017.
5. Petitioner/ Insurance Company has challenged the said Order dated 01.03.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
i) The insured has not lodged any claim with the Petitioner after the incident and had directly filed the complaint dated 11.07.2012 before the District Forum which was dismissed on 08.11.2013 due to non-filing of formal claim with the insurance company.
ii) The State Commission has not considered that the claim could not be considered for payment as there was clear violence of the condition of the policy with regard to the intimation and reasonable care of the vehicle.
iii) The State Commission has not considered the FIR dated 12.01.2012 properly. FIR clearly shows that the accused Vijay had started the vehicle and fled away, which clearly shows the lack of reasonable care on the part of the insured.
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 3 of21
iv). Both the Fora below failed to appreciate that there is no cogent reasons given by the Respondent-1 for not filling the claim in January 2012 but directly filing the complaint in July, 2012 before the District Forum with regard to the claim, which is already having complex facts with regard to passenger stealing the vehicle, when the driver and other passenger left the vehicle along with ignition keys and still there was delay in lodging FIR and inordinate delay in informing the insurance company. Even the V.T. Message was flashed after 12 hours from time of incident.
V) The State Commission has wrongly maintained the order of District Forum directing the insurance company to pay interest @ 9% from the date of theft i.e. 09.01.2012. In case of such nature, wherein the first intimation was received formally on 13.11.13, the order directing the interest payment from the date of theft is unreasonable, specifically when the fresh complaint was only filed on 09.06.2015 before the District Forum. The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane [First Appeal No. 321/2005 dated 09.12.2009] and judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s Harchand Rai ChandanLal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 and further relied upon this Commission's judgment in the case of Devender Singh Vs New India Insurance co. Ltd. & Ors. [1986-2005 CONSUMER 8542 (NS)1. The National Commission has taken a view in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bijender Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha - Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010.
(vi) The Fora below omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 4 of21 standard basis. The Petitioner 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 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pravesh Chander Chadha's case (supra) it is held that the petitioner insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondent.
6. Brief summary of their contentions of the parties based on their written arguments:
6.1 It is contended by the Petitioner that the theft took place on 09.01.2012 and the Complaint 126/2015 before the District Forum was filed on 09.06.2015. Even if the time period i.e. 10 months, spent by the Respondent under litigation before the District Forum in Complaint No. 140/2012 i.e. from 11.07.2012 (date of institution) till 08.11.2013 (date of decision) is excluded in the light of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in that case also the Consumer Complaint No. 126/2015, was barred by limitation of 2 years. It is further contended that the Petitioner has not rejected the claim of the Respondent, rather, the claim was closed due to failure of Respondent to provide documents and explanation. It is also contended that it is a settled law that in the cases where rejection is not made by the insurance company, the complaint shall be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action i.e. theft.
Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Ganpat Ram Madhavi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., RP No. 1065/2011. It is also contended that it is an admitted fact, recorded in the order dated 08.11.2013 that the Respondent/Complainant lodged the claim with the Petitioner for the first time on 13.11.2013. Even after lodging the claim, the Respondent did not provide the documents. Finally vide letter dated 11.09.2014 the Insurance Company, intimated the RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 5 of21 Respondent that in reference to the earlier reminder letter date 24.05.2014, the claim shall be closed in case the requested documents are not provided within 10 days. Despite that, no document was provided by the Respondent. It is also contended that State Commission has wrongly stated in para 7 of its order that the Respondent intimated the police on the date of theft, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Respondent. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another (2020) 11 SCC 612, wherein it was held that the FIR should be lodged with the police without delay. The FIR was lodged on 12.01.2012 i.e. after 3 days of the theft and the copy of the FIR reflects that the intimation to the police was given only on 12.01.2012. There is no mention of intimation dated 09.01.2012 made by the Respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the police started the investigation only on 12.01.2012 i.e. after 3 days of the date of loss. The State Commission wrongly stated in para 8 that the Petitioner was aware of the theft therefore, there is no delay in intimation of theft to the Petitioner. It is further contended that the order dated 08.11.2013 made it very clear that no intimation was given till Nov. 2013 and the theft occurred in Jan. 2012. Therefore, there was a huge delay in lodging the claim with the Petitioner.
6.2 It is contended by the Respondents that Sunder Singh Complainant/ Respondent no. 1 was owner of vehicle (Mahindra Bolero). The said vehicle was insured with United Insurance Co. Ltd. valid for the period from 08.11.2011 to 07.11.2012. The insured declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.4,83,600/- The vehicle was stolen on 09.01.2012 in the area of Bansur, District Alwar. Information of theft was given to the Police Control Room, Alwar on 09-01-2012. The police control Room immediately flashed a VT message to all the Station House Officers, In-
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 6 of21 charge police posts and PCRs etc. First Information Report (FIR) No. 24/2012 was registered in Police Station Bansur, District Alwar. The Police submitted untraced report in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Behrod Distt. Alwar The complainant filed claim with the insurance company but it did not pay the insured amount. Hence, filed Complaint No. 140 of 2012 before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 08.11.2013 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not furnished the required documents to the Insurance Company and directed him to supply the same to the Insurance Company. The Complainant submitted the relevant documents but despite that the insurance company did not pay the insured amount on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, delay in intimation to the Insurance Company and negligence of driver regarding reasonable care of the vehicle. It is contended that the ground of delay in intimation taken by the Insurance Company is false. The police was informed on the same day regarding the theft of vehicle and registration of FIR was totally in the hand of police and individual has no role to play in the registration of the FIR. So the delay in intimation to police is not the valid ground for rejection of genuine claim. Hence, this plea of insurance company was not considered by the State Commission. It is further contended regarding the intimation to the Insurance Company, the information was given on the very 3rd day to the office of Insurance Company at Jhajjar verbally. There is no delay of 22 months in intimation to the Insurance Company regarding the theft of vehicle as mentioned in the Revision Petition. It is also contended that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the Insurance Company has nowhere denied that the theft has taken place, hence, the claim is genuine. This version is supported by the circular dated September 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). The citation mentioned in the RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 7 of21 revision petition are decided before issuance of IRDA circular dated 20- 09-11 and these citations are not applicable in this case as the facts and circumstances of this case differ from the cited cases on the material facts. Hence these were not accepted by the District Forum. The view taken by both the Fora below are legally valid and based on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the point of delay in intimation to the Insurance Company, the Respondents have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case Om Parkash versus Reliance General Insurance & Ors. decided on 04.10.2017, wherein it was held that theft of vehicle-claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay in intimating the insurance company, which is contrary to the view taken by the Apex court in the case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Parvesh Chander Chadda Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 17-08-2010. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana also held in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Aajam Khan & Anr. decided on 03.08.2017 CWP No. 11390-2015 (O&M) that delay in intimation to insurance company- not a ground in itself to deny the claim. In the said decision it was held by the Hon'ble High court-Delay in intimation to insurance Company-FIR was lodged on next day of incident but intimation to insurance company was given after one month-held the fact that the FIR was registered on the very next day leads to the conclusion that there was hardly any time to cook up a story in order to claim the insurance- Insurance Company held liable to pay. It is also contended that the plea taken by the Insurance Company that claimant has not taken the proper care of the vehicle, is false, hence it was not accepted by both the Fora below. The Respondents have relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Niharika Maurya versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 21-04-2011. It is further contended that the Insurance Company has casually repudiated the claim when RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 8 of21 there was no violation of terms and condition of the policy of insurance. Insurance Company as well as police has not taken any interest in the investigation of this case and simply blamed the Respondent regarding delay in intimation to the Insurance Company. On the point of delay intimation to the company, the Respondent also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 4530 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24923 of 2018) titled as Trilok Singh versus Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.
7. The main reason for repudiation of the claim by the Petitioner/Insurance Company is -
(a) Delay in lodging the FIR ;
(b) Delay in intimating the Insurance Company and
(c) negligence on the part of the driver in leaving the ignition key in the vehicle.
It is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was stolen on 09.01.2012, FIR was lodged on 12.01.2012 and Insurance Company was informed on November 13th, 2013. Hence, according to the Insurance Company, there was a delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR and 22 months in giving information to the Insurance Company. It is contended by the Respondent-l/Complainant (now represented through their legal heirs) that immediately on 09.01.2012 itself when the vehicle was stolen, information of theft was given to the Police Control Room, Alwar. The Police Control Room immediately flashed a V/T message to all the station house Officers, In-charge police posts and PCRs. The FIR was registered in Police Station, Bansur and police submitted untraced report in the court of Juducial Magistrate 1st class. Respondent-1 contends that Registration of FIR is totally in the hands of police and individual has no role to play in the registration of the FIR. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR is not a valid ground. As regards delay in RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 9 of21 intimating the Insurance Company is concerned, the Respondent-1 contends that Complainant orally informed the office of the insurance company on the 3rd day itself but he could not produce any documentary evidence in this regard. He further contends that there is no delay of 22 months. The Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum on 11.07.2012. The Insurance Company was served in this complaint and the complaint was contested. Hence, this is to be treated as valid intimation to the Insurance Company.
8. Respondent-1 has also relied upon the circular No. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20th September 2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) regarding delay in claim intimation/documents submissions to contend that in view of this Circular, contentions of the Insurance Company regarding delay in intimation/submission of documents are not valid reasons to repudiate the claim. Respondent-1 has also relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/this Commission.
9. We have carefully considered the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In this case, earlier Consumer Complaint No. 140/2012 filed by the Complainant on 11.07.2012 before the District Forum, was dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to file his claim along with relevant documents before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has drawn our attention to their letter dated 11.09.2014 vide which they have sought certain documents from the Complainant and explanation to the reasons for delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the Insurance Company. The relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced below:
"Re: Theft of entire vehicle No. HR-63-B-1664, Mahindra Bolero, 2010 RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 10 of 21 Policy No. 042382/13/11/00001325 date of loss 09/01/2012.
This has reference to the investigator letter 06/12/2013 and reminder dated 24/5/2014 regarding above. In this connection you are again advised to submit the following documents within 10 days details are as under
1. Policy Copy and copy of Intimation letter.
2. Claim Form.
3. Original copy of First Information Report lodged with Police (FIR).
4. Original copy of Untraced Report issued by Police.
5. Original copy of Final Report under section 173. Cr Pc/Final closure Report duty accepted by the area Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. Copy of Letter to RTO to keep the file in Safe Custody.
7. NCRB report from 7, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110-066 Phone No. 011-26172324 EXT. No. 236 or through their websites htto://ncrb. nic. in or httD://ncrb.gov. in.
8. Non repossession tetter from Financiers, if the vehicle financed.
9. Registration Book duty verified from R.T.O with taxes paid upto date.
10. Copy ofInvoice.
11. Both original Keys of vehicle.
12. Consent letter from insured.
13. Previous policy copy, NCB confirmation from previous insurer and pre insurance inspection report if there is break in insurance.
14. DD entry/Zipnet entry/PCR call report in Police station on date of toss.
15. FITNESS
16.PERMIT
17. GR/Load Chaiian
18. Badge, if applicable
19. DL of the persons RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 11 of 21 As per investigation report the vehicle was stolen on 09/01/2012, FIR was registered on 12/01/2012 and the intimation to United India Insurance Co.
was given on 13/11/2013 i.e. after 22 months. Therefore you are also advised to explain the reasons thereof to enable us to proceed further.
You are requested to provide us the above said documents and explanation in details within 10 days otherwise we will be having no other option but to dose the CLAIM AS NO CLAIM, WHICH PLEASE BE NOTED."
10. Again, another letter was issued on 23.04.2015 demanding certain documents. Extract of relevant portion of this letter is also reproduced below:
"This has reference to your letter undated sending therewith following documents.
1. Screen report of vehicle no. HR-63B-1664
2. Photocopy of information for theft to RTO Bahadurgarh
3. Photocopy of letter issued by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd.
4. Photocopy of above policy In this regard, please refer our earlier letter dt. 11.09.2014 and you are again advised to submit the following documents at the earliest.
1. Claim form
2. Original Copy of FIR lodged with police
3. Original Copy of untraced report by police
4. Original copy of final report under section 173 CrPc/final closure report duly accepted by the area Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Copy of letter to RTO to keep the file in safe custody.
6. NCRB report from 7, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066 Phone No.011-26172324, Ext.No.236 or through their websites htto./Znerb. nic. in or http://ncrb. gov, in:
7. Copy of invoice
8. Both original keys of vehicle
9. Consent letter from insured
10. Previous policy copy, NCB confirmation from previous insurer and pre insurance inspection report if there is break in insurance.
11. DD entry/Zipnet entry/PCR call report in Policy station on date of loss.
12. FITNESS RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 12 of 21
13. PERMIT
14. GR/LOAD CHALLAN
15. Badge, if applicable
16. DL of the persons
17. Registration book duty verified from RTO with taxes paid upto date.
You are requested to provide us the above documents at the earliest."
11. On account of Insurance Company not allowing the claim, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 09.06.2015 vide Complaint No. 126/2015, which was decided by the District Forum on 18.05.2016. The Complaint was allowed with the directions to the Insurance Company to make payment of the claim/insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.4,38,600/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 09.01.2012, till realization of final payment.
12. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed vide impugned order of the State Commission dated 01.03.2017. The State Commission considered at length various contentions raised by the Insurance Company. Extract of the relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below:
"5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised three fold arguments. Firstly, that the vehicle was stolen due to the negligence of its driver because he left the ignition key in the vehicle. Secondly, that the vehicle was stolen on January 9th, 2012; FIR. was lodged on January 12th, 2012 and thirdly the Insurance Company was informed on November 13th, 2013. There was delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and 22 months in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.
6. The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and stolen on January 9th, 2012, that is, during the subsistence of the insurance policy. In the FIR. (Exhibit P-4) it has been clearly mentioned that on January 9th, 2012, Sunder Singh son of the complainant, was driving the vehicle in the area of District A/war. At that time Sandeep Resident of Akeri Madanpur, District Jhajjar and Vijay son of Ghasi Ram, Resident of Bhagvi, Police Station Dadri were also travelling in the vehicle. Both these persons, that is, Sandeep and Vijay RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 13 of 21 were known to the driver-Sunder Singh. When the vehicle reached near Village Mothuka, the driver stopped the vehicle on road side. The driver and Sandeep went for urination. In the meantime, the vehicle was stolen by Vijay son of Ghasi Ram, who was already sitting in the vehicle. This being so, it cannot be said that the driver had left the vehicle un-attended because a person known to him was sitting in the vehicle. More so, there is no mention in the FIR (Exhibit P-4) that the ignition key was left in the vehicle.
7. Coming now to the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of 4 days in lodging of the FIR. The vehicle was stolen on January 9th, 2012. The complainant has placed on record the V. T. message of the same date, that is, January 9th, 2012 (Exhibit P-
5), which was flashed by the Police Control Room and received in Police Station, Bansur, District Alwar, with respect to the theft of vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration NO.HR-63B-1664, that is, the vehicle of the complainant. The Police recorded F.I.R. (Exhibit P-4) on January 12th, 2012. Thus, the delay in recording the F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainant and it was for the Police to register the F.I.R. immediately.
8. So far as the plea of the Insurance Company that there was delay of 22 months in giving intimation, no evidence worth the name has been led by the Insurance Company. It is the stand of the Insurance Company that intimation was given by the complainant on November 13th, 2013 whereas the truth is otherwise. The Insurance Company was well aware about complainant's claim much prior to November 13th, 2013 because in the earlier complaint No. 140 qua the same incident which was filed on July 11th, 2012 and decided on November Sth, 2013, the Insurance Company had opposed complainant's claim. This being so, the plea of the Insurance Company that the information was given by the complainant on November 13th, 2013, stands falsified.
9. In view of the above, it is proved to the hilt that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on January 9th, 2012 the information of which was given to the Police immediately and F.I.R. (Exhibit P-4) was lodged. The Police submitted the untraced report. The Insurance Company was also informed. The evidence led by the complainant has proved that it was a genuine claim of the complainant. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such flimsy pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. It will be in the interest ofjustice that the insurer should not rely upon pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants which are otherwise well founded."
13. We have also considered the contentions raised by the Insurance Company in the light of available records and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, some of which are briefly discussed below:
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 14 of 2113.1 In Jaina Construction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another (2022) 4 SCC 527, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"11. The three-Judge Bench in Gurshinder Singh k Shriram Genera! Insurance Co. Ltd. [Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 612] in simitar case as on hand, interpreted the very Condition 1 of the insurance contract and observed as under: (SCC pp. 618-
21, paras 9-15,17 & 20) "9. We are of the view that much would depend upon the words "cooperate" and "immediate", in Condition 1 of the standard form for commercial vehicles package policy. Before we analyse this case any further, we need to observe the rules of interpretation applicable to a contract of insurance. Generally, an insurance contract is governed by the rules of interpretation applicable to the genera! contracts. However, due to the specialised nature of contract of insurance, certain rules are tailored to suit insurance contracts. Under the English law, the development of insurance jurisprudence is given credence to Lord Mansfield, who developed the taw from its infancy. Without going much into the development of the interpretation rules, we may allude to Neuberger, J. in Arnold v. Britton [Arnold v. Britton, 2015 AC 1619 :
(2015) 2 WLR1593:2015 UKSC 36], which is simplified as under:
(1) Reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances was not to be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed.
(2) The less dear the words used were, the more ready the court could property be to depart from their natural meaning, but that did notjustify departing from the natural meaning.
(3) Commercial common sense was not to be invoked retrospectively, so that the mere fact that a contractual arrangement .
has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties was not a reason for departing from the natural language. (4) A court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a provision as correct simply because it appeared to be a very imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed.
(5) When interpreting a contractual provision, the court could only take into account facts or circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made and which were known or reasonably available to both parties.
RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 15 of 21(6) If an event subsequently occurred which was plainly not intended or contemplated by the parties, if it was dear what the parties would have intended, the court would give effect to that intention.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that this contract is to be interpreted according to the context involved in the contract. The contract we are interpreting is a commercial vehicle package policy. There is no gainsaying that in a contract, the bargaining power is usually at equal footing. In this regard, the joint intention of the parties is taken into consideration for interpretation of a contract. However, in most standard form contracts, that is not so. In this regard, the court in such circumstances would consider the application of the rule of contra proferentem, when ambiguity exists and an interpretation of the contract is preferred which favours the party with lesser bargaining power.
11. It is argued on behalf of the respondents and rightly so, that the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and the parties would be strictly bound by the terms and conditions as provided in the contract between the parties.
12. In our view, applying the aforesaid principles. Condition 1 of the standard form for commercial vehicles package policy will have to be divided into two parts. The perusal of the first part of Condition 1 would reveal that it provides that "a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage". It further provides that in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. It provides that every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the insurance company immediately on receipt by the insured. It further provides that a notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately by the insured if he shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this policy.
13. A perusal of the wordings used in this part would reveal that all the things which are required to be done under this part are related to an occurrence of an accident. On occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is required to immediately give a notice in writing to the company. This appears to be so that the company can assign a surveyor so as to assess the damages suffered by the insured/vehide. It further provides that any letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereofshall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. As such, the intention would be dear. The question of receipt of letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof by the insured, would only arise in the event of the criminal proceedings being initiated with regard to the occurrence of the accident. It further provides that the insured RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 16 of 21 shall also give a notice in writing to the company immediately if the insured shall have the knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. It will again make the intention dear that the immediate action is contemplated in respect of an accident occurring to the vehicle.
14. We find that the second part of Condition 1 deals with the 'theft or criminal act other than the accident'. It provides that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.
15. It is further to be noted that, in the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation.
16. * * *
17. That the term "cooperate"as used under the contract needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances. While assessing the "duty to cooperate" for the insured, inter alia, the court should have regard to those breaches by the insured which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of "duty to cooperate" of the insured.
18.-19. ** *
20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 17 of 21 delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured."
12. In the opinion of the Court the aforestated ratio of the judgment clinches the issue involved in the case on hand. In the instant case also, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the complainant. The accused were also arrested and charge- sheeted, however, the vehicle could hot be traced out. Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has repudiated only on the ground of delay. When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the court concerned, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft."
13.2 In Dharamender v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2024) 1 SCC 381, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"4. The teamed counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Parvesh Chander Chadha [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, (2018) 9 SCC 798: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 592] was referred to a three-Judge Bench in view of another judgment of this Court in OmPrakash v. ReHance General Insurance [Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 759] . The three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. [Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 612], inter alia, held that :
(Gurshinder Singh case [Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 612], SCCpp. 620-21, para 20) "20.... when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the Insurance Company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured."RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 18 of 21
It is the case where the FIR was lodged on the same day the theft had occurred.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that this Court has not approved the repudiation of claim only on the ground of intimation to the Insurance Company, but delay in lodging an FIR is an important step in examining the claim of the appellant, since as per the appellant himself, the report was lodged after 7 days of the incident. Therefore, the claim filed by the complainant was rightly rejected by Ncdrc.
6. l/lfe have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the order passed by Ncdrc cannot be sustained. The claim of the appellant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that there is delay of 78 days in intimating the vehicle being stolen on the intervening night of 24-4-2010/25-4-2010. It is the said ground which was raised and accepted by Ncdrc. Ncdrc has returned the following finding to set aside the orders passed by the District Forum, as affirmed by the State Commission:
"7. The delay of 78 days was not explained. The complainant has failed to make a case that there was delay in intimation due to unavoidable circumstances as per the IRDA circular."
7. However, in respect of the argument that the FIR was delayed, the said arguments need not be examined in this case as the case of Insurance Company throughout was based upon delay in intimation to the Insurance Company.
8. In view of the said fact, we find that the order of Ncdrc cannot be , sustained in law. The present appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum, as affirmed by the State Commission, is restored. The amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission be paid to the appellant within two months."
14. We have also gone through the Circular dated 20.09.2011 of IRDA, which is reproduced below:
"Ref- IRDA/HL TH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 Date: 20.09.2011 CIRCULAR RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 19 of 21 To: AH life Insurers and non-Hfe insurers Re: Delay in claim intimation/documents submission with respect to i. AH Hfe insurance contracts and ii. AH Non-Hfe individual and group insurance contracts The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents. The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.
The insurers' decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.
The insurers are advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents, suitably enunciating insurers' stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims where the delay is proved to be for reasons beyond the control of the insured."
15. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Insurance Company is not justified in rejecting the claim of the Complainants on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, delay in intimating the Insurance Company and negligence on the part of the driver in leaving the ignition key in the vehicle. There are concurrent findings of both the Fora below as regards deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 20 of 21 judgments1 that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisonal jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
16. In view of the foregoing, we hold that State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, duly addressing the contentions of both sides and we find to reason to interfere with its findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.
17. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
jr/Court-3/AB MEMBER
1 Ruby ( Chandra ) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson ( India ) Limited and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 286, T.Ramalingeswara Rao ( Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 RP 1608 OF 2024 Page 21 of 21