Delay in giving timely intimation to the insurance company can render the claim not payable, and the insurance company has a legitimate right to investigate the claim.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Alwar dated 30.7.2010 by which it disallowed the complaint.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken a insurance of his motorcycle from the respondent company. This motorcycle was stolen on 19.7.2009 and a FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station. The theft claim of the motorcycle was repudiated by the company on the ground that company had not been intimated timely of the incident. The learned DCF accepted the defence of the company that intimation was given to the company after 42 days of the incident, hence was not payable.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned DCF has rejected the complaint on the ground that no time and date of theft has been mentioned in the FIR. He has argued that the motorcycle was stolen in the night and exact date and time could not be ascertained and thus could not be mentioned in the FIR. He further argues that the claim cannot be wholly repudiated for giving delayed intimation to the company as the complainant is an illiterate person and he was not aware of the conditions mentioned in the policy and he has submitted that for violation of this condition sub-standard claim can be passed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on II (2013) CPJ 189 (Kuldeep Singh v. IFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co.), II (2013) CPJ 481 (NC) (Satish v. United India Insurance Co. ), IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC ) ( New India Assurance Co. v. Trilochan Jane) and I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC) (Sriram General Insurance Co. v. Mahender Jat). He has argued that the Hon'ble National Commission has consistantly held that delay in giving the timely intimation to the company of the incident renders the claim not payable.

5. We have heard both the respective counsels and have considered the arguments. The main ground of repudiation of this claim is that the company was informed of the incident after 42 days. We find that the complainant has not offered any explaination as to how he waited for 42 days before he informed the company of the incident. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the company it has been consistantly held that the Insurance Company has a legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make endeavour to recover the same. Thus, the company has been deprieved of its right to conduct independent investigation into the theft incident in order to verify the genuineness of the claim. Moreover, delay of 42 days has not been explained by the complainant.

6. In view of the above, we do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the learned DCF,Alwar. The appeal is dismissed.