IMPORTANT POINT
Insured is under a contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to Insurer immediately after theft came to his knowledge.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner / complainant purchased a Truck bearing registration No. C.G.10-C-2410 and got the same insured with respondent No.1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 24.6.2009 to 23.06.2010. The vehicle was allegedly parked by the driver near Babji Nagar on 13.12.2009 and was allegedly stolen from there. The FIR with respect to the alleged theft of the vehicle was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur on 04.01.2010. The intimation of the theft came to be given to the insurer only on 07.01.2010. The claim was rejected on the ground that the intimation of the theft was given to the insurer after 20 days of the theft. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2. The complaint came to be resisted by the insurer on the ground that the complainant had breached the terms of the insurance policy by not reporting the theft within 48 hours of the incident. It was also pointed out that there was delay on the part of the complainant even in lodging FIR with the concerned Police Station.

3. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4. This is petitioner’s own case that the vehicle came to be stolen in the night intervening 13-14/12/2009 and the theft came to his knowledge on 14.12.2009. The FIR with the concerned Police Station came to be lodged on 04.1.2010. The case of the complainant / petitioner is that he had reported the theft to the concerned superintendent of Police at Bilaspur on 21.12.2009. Even then there is a delay of seven days in reporting the theft to the police. The letter written by the complainant to the concerned Superintendent of Police contains no explanation for not reporting the theft immediately on discovering the same on 14.12.2009. There is no allegation in the aforesaid letter that the concerned Police Station had refused to register the FIR. The complainant / petitioner did not even claim having gone to the concerned Police Station for the purpose of reporting the theft of the vehicle. Thus, there is absolutely no worthwhile explanation for the delay of seven days in reporting the theft even to the concerned Superintendent of Police. The petitioner/complainant committed breach of a mandatory term of the insurance policy by not reporting the theft to the police immediately after discovering the same on 14.12.2009. The insurer therefore, stood relieved of its obligations to reimburse the complainant for the loss of the vehicle on account of its theft. The requirement to report the theft to the concerned police station immediately on discovering the same is not a mere formality, the purpose of the said requirement being to set the machinery of law into motion and enable the concerned police officers to make an effort to trace the vehicle. The said purpose is likely to be defeated when there is a delay of as much as seven days in reporting the theft of the vehicle.

5. It is also not in dispute that a written intimation of the theft of the vehicle was given to the insurer only on 04.10.2009. Thus, there was a delay of about 21-22 days in reporting the theft of the vehicle to the insurer. The petitioner / complainant committed yet another breach of the term of the policy by not reporting the theft of the vehicle to the insurer.

6. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010, decided on 17.08.2010, the car in question was stolen between 18.01.1995 and 20.01.1995. The FIR was lodged with the police on 20.01.1995 but intimation of the said theft was given to the insurance company only on 22.5.1995. The claim having been repudiated on the ground of the breach of the conditions of the policy, a complaint was filed by the insured befor