Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Jai Prakash —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2479 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 02/06/2015 in Appeal No. 1010/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 11.1.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Insured is under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance Act, 1938—Section 64UC(1)—Insurance—Theft of Truck—Claim lodged by complainant rejected by insurance company on account of delayed intimation of theft to it—Even a loss or damage due to theft of vehicle, is required to be reported to insurance company immediately after theft is detected in case insured intends to lodge claim with insurer for reimbursement of loss or damage sustained by him—Substitution of term ‘accident or loss or damage’ in old standard form by term ‘accidental loss or damage’ in new standard form does not change scope of insurance policy issued in respect of a motor vehicle—Insured was under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately after theft came to his knowledge—Mere intimating police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy—Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 14 to 16)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.

ORDER

Revision Petition No.2479 of 2015

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant who owned a truck dumper bearing No. RJ 23 GA 4786 got the same insured with the petitioner company for the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen between 06.6.2011 to 07.6.2011 and a report with the concerned police station was lodged on 07.6.2011 itself. The intimation to the insurance company however, was given only on 07.9.2011. The claim lodged by the complainant was however rejected by the insurance company on account of delayed intimation of the theft to it. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The petitioner / opposite party resisted the complaint on the same ground, on which the claim had been rejected.

2. The District Forum vide its order dated 29.10.2014, allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

3. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 02.6.2015, the insurer is before us by way of this revision petition.

Revision Petition No.1068 of 2015

4. The complainant / petitioner purchased a vehicle and got the same insured with the respondent for the period from 16.01.2009 to 15.01.2010. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen on 28.09.2009, and could not be traced. An FIR was registered by the police on 06.11.2009. The intimation of the theft to the insurance company was given on 09.11.2009, after delay of 41 days. Since no claim was paid to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

5. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company, primarily on the grounds that there was delay in lodging FIR as well as in intimating the theft of the vehicle to them. It was claimed by the insurance company that the complainant had contravened the terms and conditions of the policy by not lodging the FIR and not intimating them immediately after the occurrence.

6. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.09.2012 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.7.2014, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

7. As far as lodging of FIR with the police is concerned, the petitioner / complainant has filed a certificate issued by the Kotwali Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand), certifying therein that a complaint dated 28.09.2009 was filed by Shri Gurjant Singh to the police station, Rudrapur on 28.09.2009 and FIR No.607/2009 has been registered on the basis of the complaint dated 28.09.2009. Since the theft of the vehicle took place in the night of 27.09.2009, there was no delay in intimating the theft to the police. Having intimated the theft to the police on 28.9.2009 itself, the petitioner / complainant could not have compelled them to register an FIR on the same date. Once the theft is reported to the police, there will be due compliance of the term of the insurance policy requiring intimation of the theft to the police. The fora below therefore, could not have rejected the complaint on account of the late registration of the FIR.

8. One of the conditions, subject to which the insurance policy was issued to the complainants, reads as under:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and 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 im

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTInsured is under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately.

IMPORTANT POINT
Insured is under contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately.