Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that insured vehicle is hypothecated with HDFC Bank Limited, but the above bank has not been impleaded as a party in this case. The OP closed the claim of complainant as "no claim" vide letter dated 06.07.2018 for non submission of document by complainant i.e. untraced report of the vehicle duly signed by the Magistrate. It is further averred on merits by OPs that even the insurance claim can be paid to the bank, wherefrom the vehicle was got hypothecated and not to the complainant straightway. The OP admitted the fact of issuing the insurance policy to complainant for the above vehicle for IDV of Rs.22,00,000/- for the period from 30.04.2017 to 29.04.2018. The OP further averred that it appointed the investigator to look into the matter, who submitted his report dated 31.03.2018 and found the theft case of insured vehicle as genuine one. The complainant did not submit the untraced report issued by the Magistrate because it has been issued by SSP Office Bathinda. The police is not competent to issue untraceable report of the stolen vehicle being investigating agency. The OP asserted in the written reply that the claim was closed for non submission of untraceable report by complainant being not issued by the Magistrate. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. To counter this evidence of complainant, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Deep Shikha, Deputy Manager of OP on the record. She stated that the copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions is Ex.OP-1. This witness has not disputed the fact of issuing insurance policy and the theft of above insured vehicle. She stated that complainant has not supplied the latest untraceable report by the Magistrate and due to this reason, her claim was closed as "No Claim" by OP. She proved on record the repudiation letter dated 06.07.2018 as Ex.OP-2 on behalf of OP.

5. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant is entitled to the insured declared value of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- from OP in this case, as insurance claim. There is no dispute of this fact that complainant obtained the insurance policy from OP against premium for her vehicle. She is registered owner of the vehicle vide certificate of registration Ex.C-1. The insurance policy schedule cum certificate of insurance is Ex.C-2. The FIR lodged by Mandeep Singh on behalf of complainant with the police is Ex.C-3 on 09.01.2018. The OP appointed Third Eye Investigator as surveyor and it submitted report Ex.C-5 finding the case of theft of above vehicle to be genuine which falls under the purview of insurance policy. As per the report of the investigator, the claim is genuine and is admissible under the insurance policy. The OP simply closed the case as 'no claim' on the pretext that complainant has not supplied the untraceable certificate of the stolen vehicle countersigned by the Magistrate. The counsel for the complainant brought to our notice that the non-traceable certificate issued by the police authority dated 16.05.2018 Ex.C-7 is on the record. The police stated that the vehicle is not recovered as yet. It might take a long time for the case to reach its ultimate decision. It is for the Magistrate either to cancel the report or to reject it or to order for re-investigation of the case to find out the stolen vehicle and insured person cannot be made to wait for such indefinite period, as it may take years for the Judicial Magistrate concerned to either accept the report of untraceable or to reject it or to order for reinvestigation of the case for finding out the stolen vehicle under the provision of Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973. Even police gave in writing through its SHO of Police Station Sadar Bathinda on 18.05.2018 vide Ex.C-8 that no clue has been found about the offender and the stolen vehicle is still untraceable. In this view of the matter, we find that OP wrongly closed the claim of complainant without any basis. The certificate issued by SHO Police Station Sadar Bathinda, vide Ex.C-8 and report issued by SSP Office vide Ex.C-7 with regard to vehicle that vehicle is still lying untraced is quite sufficient for this purpose.

6. Since, the case of theft of the vehicle was found genuine one and vehicle has not been traced as yet and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.22,00,000/- and hence closing of case by OP on hyper technical ground of non-issuance of untraceable report certificate by Magistrate is not tenable in our view. So far as the contention of OP that there is delay in giving intimation to the insurance company of two days is concerned and hence claim is liable to be rejected, we find no ground in it even the IRDA notification vide Ex.C-15 dated 20.09.2011 does not approve of such hyper technical rejection of the claim of the insured on account of some delay in giving the intimation to insurance company. Some time is taken by the owner to trace out the missing vehicle and to trace out the facts, which led to the theft of the insured vehicle. Consequently, as held by the Apex Court in "Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company and another" IV (2017) CPJ-10-11 (SC) that the genuine claim should not be rejected on technical ground of delayed intimation. We find no force in submission of counsel for OP that complainant gave delayed intimation to OP leading to rejection of the claim.