IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim in toto, made by owner of vehicle which was duly insured with Insurance Company, in case of loss of vehicle due to theft, merely on the ground that there was delay in informing company regarding theft of vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 9th September, 2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the NCDRC”) in Revision Petition No. 1104 of 2016 whereby the NCDRC while allowing the said Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company, has set aside the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Haryana at Panchkula and the order dated 26th February, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.

2. Heard Mr. Avinash Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents though duly served.

3. The precise question that falls for consideration before this Court is - whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim in toto, made by the owner of the vehicle, which was duly insured with the insurance company, in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft, merely on the ground that there was a delay in informing the company regarding the theft of vehicle?

4. The undisputed facts transpiring from the record are that the vehicle in question i.e., Tata Aiwa Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-02-098177 was purchased by the appellant on 31.10.2007. The said vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 1- Insurance Company. The said vehicle was robbed by some miscreants on 04.11.2007. Consequently, an FIR was registered by the appellant-complainant on 05.11.2007 for the offence under Section 395 IPC at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat (Haryana). The police arrested the accused and also filed the challan against them in the concerned Court, however, the vehicle in question could not be traced and, therefore, the police filed untraceable report on 23.08.2008. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question. The Insurance Company, however, failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time, and therefore, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint being the Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.

5. It may be noted that during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the respondent no.1- Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.10.2010, stating inter alia that there was a breach of condition no. 1 of the policy which mandated immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss/damage, and that the complainant had intimated about the loss on 11.04.2008 i.e. after the lapse of more than five months and, therefore, the Insurance Company had disowned their liability on the claim of the complainant.

6. The District Forum allowed the said claim of the complainant by holding that the complainant was entitled to the insured amount on non-standard basis, i.e., Rs. 12,79,399/- as 75% of the IDV i.e., Rs. 17,05,865/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization from the Insurance Company. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 612 of 2015 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Haryana), Panchkula. The complainant also preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 537 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal filed by the complainant by increasing rate of interest awarded by the District Forum from 6% to 9% vide the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2015. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred the Revision Petition before the NCDRC which came to be allowed as stated hereinabove.

7. Since the respondent no.1 - Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that