Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) 21(b) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 192, 39 - Insurance - Theft of Vehicle - Non registration - Violation of policy condition alleged - Claim repudiated - Deficiency in service - District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission dismissed appeal - Hence revision - Vehicle was stolen while parked in parking of tourism complex - At the time of insurance subject vehicle was unregistered - Despite that insurance company provided insurance cover to subject vehicle without insisting for its registration, temporarily or permanent, before accepting proposal for insurance - Insurance Company cannot take advantage of offence under Section 192 read with Section 39 of MV Act committed by insured by driving vehicle from his residence to hospital much earlier to theft of vehicle which was parked in parking lot of hospital - For prosecution under Section 192 read with Section 39 of MV Act, complainant could be fined between Rs.2,000 to Rs.5,000 - Denial of insurance cover to extent of Rs.6,31,750/- for violation of Section 39 read with Section 192 of MV Act to complainant would amount to imposing a punishment much higher than punishment prescribed under Section 192 of MV Act - Repudiation not justified."

25. 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 governed by terms and conditions of policy - Complainant Society failed to discharge their obligation. Repudiation justified."

30. 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 // 15 // Insurance Company must be given immediately. Breach of policy conditions established. Repudiation justified."

// 26 //

8. For the above said reasons, we find that no fault can be found with the impugned order resulting into dismissal of consumer complaint. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order."

44. In Ganpat Rama Madhavi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. IV (2011) CPJ 210 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "If the Insurance Company had not repudiated claim and taken more than two years to take decision of claim, aggrieved insured could not have waited indefinitely and would have had to file consumer complaint from date of occurrence of peril. Period of limitation cannot be reckoned from the date of repudiation of claim. Complaint time barred."