NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Jaspal Kaur & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1670 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 30/12/2013 in Appeal No.430/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 17.3.2015
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.K. Bhawnani & Mohd. Anis UR Rehman, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Word immediately stronger than expression within reasonable time, compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15, 17, 19 & 21 — Insurance — Truck stolen — Respondent not informed appellant about alleged theft of insured vehicle as per the terms of policy — HELD — Insurer cannot be saddled with liability to pay compensation to insured — Despite fact that not complied with terms of policy. [Paras 3 to 8]
Result: Revision dismissed
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the petitioners present. Arguments heard. The truck was stolen on 27.10.2008. FIR was lodged on 02.11.2008. It is explained that as a matter of fact the police was informed immediately on 27.10.2008, itself. Police desired that the owner should come and lodge the report. The owner of the truck resides in Chhatisgarh. He came and the report was lodged after the expiry of six days on 02.11.2008. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the report was lodged with the New India Assurance Company on telephone but they desired that the copy of the FIR should be filed. Ultimately, written report was lodged with the Insurance Company on 07.11.2008 , i.e. after 11 days when the vehicle was stolen.
2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. He submits that he is claiming compensation only on non-standard basis. He has also invited our attention towards the IRDA circular which mentions that the delay can be condoned and has also invited our attention towards the following para of the circular:-
“Circulars on Late Insurance Claim
The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement, etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances”.
3. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The Apex Court in “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha – Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, was pleased to hold:-
“Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”
4. Again this Commission in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane” in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009 took the same view and discussed the word immediately:-
“As per Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately is defined as under: -
(1). The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time