Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Ravi Kumar Chadha —Petitioner
versus
United India Insurance Company
Limited —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1908-1909 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 27/04/2015 in Appeal No.182/2014 & 200/2014 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
Decided on 17.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Avinashi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. De, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Though intimation to Insurance company has been delayed yet the insurance claim can still be allowed if the FIR has been lodged immediately after the theft.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)and 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Sections 2(11) and 58]—Theft of vehicle—Repudiation of insurance claim—Legality a vehicle of petitioner stolen—Insurance claim repudiated on ground that vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate and that the intimation was given with a delay of 13 days—Challenge against—Delay in giving intimation of theft to insurance company not fatal—Intimation to insurance company if delayed the claim can still be allowed of the FIR has been lodged immediately after the theft—Thus, 13 days in giving intimation to insurance company cannot be considered sufficient to repudiate the total claim—So far so, fitness certificate is only required for commercial vehicle and not in the case of a private vehicle—I.D.V. of vehicle is Rs. 8,29,310/-—75% of IDV, i.e., Rs. 6,21,982.50 allowed to complainant with interest @ 5% p.a.—Direction issued. (Paras 8 to 12)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties in the matter.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the petitioner Toyota Innova Car was stolen in Delhi when he came here for a treatment on 10.04.2012. FIR was lodged on 11.04.2012 and after returning to Dehradun he submitted all the papers relating to the insurance on 23.04.2012. However, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated vide letter dated 27.09.2012 on the ground that the vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate and that the intimation was given with a delay of 13 days.
3. Aggrieved with the repudiation, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint being CC no. 356 of 2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing the written statement wherein it was stated that the intimation and the claim was received by the insurance company with a delay of 13 days, therefore the claim was not maintainable. The District Forum vide its order dated 07.08.2014 allowed the claim by observing as under:
“The complaint filed by the complainant is admitted against the opposite party insurance company to grant the actual value of the car Rs.8.00 lakh, Rs.20,000 as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses. Opposite company is directed that ensure to pay the
entire amount to complainant within 30 days”.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the respondent insurance company preferred an appeal no.182 of 2014 before the State Commission. The complainant also preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA no. 200 of 2014. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.04.2015 set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint by allowing FA no. 182 of 2014 and by dismissing FA no. 200 of 2014.
5. Hence, the present revision petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the petitioner had telephonically informed to the Dehradun office of the insurance company that the vehicle was stolen and he was advised to lodge his claim when he returns to Dehradun. Thereafter he submitted his papers on 23.04.2012. Learned counsel states that he does not have any record to prove the telephonic conversation. He further states that the delay of 13 days has happened because the vehicle was stolen in Delhi and the FIR was also lodged in Delhi. On his return to Dehradun, he submitted the papers to the insurance company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insurance and Ors., decided on 04.10.2017 wherein the delay in giving intimation to the insurance company has been condoned, as the FIR was lodged in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR was lodged on the next date itself, therefore, the delay in giving intimation and filing the claim with the insurance company should be condoned and the claim may be allowed.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company has stated that in the case of Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insurance and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that the delay must be explained and the unexplained delay cannot be condoned. The State Commission has rightly found that the delay in giving intimation to the insurance company is not properly explained by the complainant. On this basis, the order of the District Forum has been set aside and the complaint has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the insurance company states that repudiation letter mentioned that there was no valid fitness certificate on the date of theft, therefore, condition of the policy has been breached. Hence, on this count also the claim is not payable.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the material on record. So far as the delay in giving intimation to the insurance company is concerned, t
