IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in intimation deprives insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into alleged theft of vehicle.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition no.4749 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.328 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent’s vehicle number RJ 01 SJ 9942 was stolen on the night of 17.12.2010 from the rented house of the respondent by some unknown person, for which an FIR no.442 of 2010 had been lodged with police station Kekri. The police submitted a final untraced report of the property.

3. The respondent intimated the company regarding the theft of the above said vehicle on its Toll Free number 1800 180 7474 and intimated to the agent on 18.12.2010 whereby the respondent was informed to give written information to the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, Amar Plaza Tower, Opposite Daulat Bagh, Ajmer along with copy of the FIR and other documents. The respondent sent the copy of the FIR to the Branch Office at Ajmer immediately after receiving the same from the police station, after completion of all the formalities the petitioner – Insurance Company (herein) vide its letter dated 02.02.2011 repudiated the claim of the respondent stating that the vehicle was stolen on 17.12.2010 and intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to the company only 07.01.2010 for the first time which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions.

4. The above act on the part of the petitioner/ opposite party amounts to grave deficiency in service and he has suffered mental agony and financial losses due to above illegal and negligent act.

5. The respondent has prayed that the complaint be allowed and the insurance company be directed to award the following amounts to the respondent:

(i) Insurance amount of Rs.30,000/- for the stolen vehicle no. RJ 01 SJ 9942 be awarded;

(ii) Award Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent;

(iii) Award compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and financial losses to the respondent; and

(iv) Any other relief which this District Forum deems fit may be awarded.

6. The petitioner/ opposite party - insurance company in their written statements have stated that the complaint was not maintainable because the respondent in violation of the policy condition did not give written intimation regarding the incident to insurance company immediately which was an important condition in case of vehicle theft and the respondent was very well aware of it. Due to the delayed intimation, after 21 days on 07.01.2011, the insurance company was deprived from carrying on investigation and to retrieve the vehicle. The relevant condition in the policy was as under:

“Conditions:

This policy and schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this policy or the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/ or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or total inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”.

Therefore the complaint of the respondent is liable to be dismissed in violation of the policy condition of the complainant.

7. The respondent never intimated