The delayed response to an insurance claim can amount to deficiency in service, and a condition of immediate notice in the policy may not be a fundamental breach of contract.

Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The power tiller belonging to the complainant which was insured with the opposite party was damaged in a fire accident on 3.7.1997. The complainant got it repaired at a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant made a claim to the opposite party who repudiated it on the ground that the complainant has not chosen to inform about the accident immediately and thus there is breach of condition.

2. It is seen from the records that the complainant informed the opposite party about the accident only on 3.12.1997. It is to be pointed out that the opposite party chosen to reply to the complainant only on 27.8.1998 repudiating the claim. The failure to respond to the claim immediately or settle it or repudiate it within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the very act of the opposite party in taking their own time in such small matters like that of the complainant amounts to sheer deficiency in service. Therefore, that there is deficiency in service cannot be denied. The opposite party would conveniently hide under the conditions of the policy. One of the conditions of the policy says that notice shall be given immediately in writing to the company upon the occurrence of any accident. It is seen that the complainant has not sent any intimation immediately. The complainant is an illiterate person. He is poor and hails from the oppressed strata of society. The conditions in the policy are not in Tamil but in English. Therefore, we cannot expect the complainant to be aware of the conditions. It is not the case of the opposite party that at the time when the cover was sought and granted, these conditions were read out to the complainant and he was made aware of the same. That apart, the condition that it should be reported immediately is in our opinion is not fatal to the claim as it does not amount to a fundamental breach. It cannot be termed as an essential condition or a very important condition of the contract The. purpose of such condition is to enable the opposite party to send a Surveyor to assess the damage at the earliest point of time before ever the insured take steps for repairing the damage.

3. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we have to hold that even assuming that condition had not been complied with, it is not violation of a condition that would go to the root of the contract and affect the validity of the contract. hence, in our opinion, the order passed by the lower Forum cannot be faulted with.

4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without cost confirming the order passed by the lower Forum.

Appeal dismissed.

–––