IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) The insurer is required to enquire from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim. The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liable to be rejected even if it had been submitted in time.
(2) Theft of Vehicle - in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis.
(3) Breach of Policy - It is established law that in the case of theft, the breach of policy condition is not germane.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 65 of 2015 styled as Jagjeet Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereby and wherein the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the appellant – complainant has filed a consumer complaint No. 65 of 2015 alleging that he has purchased a truck (bearing No. UK06-CA-1513) for earning livelihood of his family, which was insured with the respondent - opposite party w.e.f. 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 for the insured amount of Rs. 16,80,000/-. Unfortunately, the truck driver had gone to his house parking the above truck nearby Bio-diesel Petrol Pump, Dineshpur and left his helper to look-after the truck. In the morning, when the truck driver reached the place of occurrence, where he neither found the truck nor his helper. Inspite of several efforts and searching, the said truck could not be traced then the matter was immediately informed to P.S. Dineshpur on dated 05.02.2013; after inquiring the matter, the police lodged a criminal case on 07.02.2013 under Section 406 IPC. During investigation, the vehicle in dispute could neither be traced nor did the police arrest the culprits. After investigating the matter, the final report was submitted before the concerned competent court which was accepted. The theft of the insured truck was also immediately informed to the respondent - opposite party claiming damages but no satisfactory answer was given to the insured inspite of completing all the formalities necessary to sanction the claim. By not awarding the compensation within the time, the appellant – complainant has to suffer mental agony and financial loss; his advocate dispatched the notice on dated 23.06.2015 which was not replied. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party - insurer has submitted its written statement admitting the fact that the truck was insured with the answering opposite party. It is further averred that information about theft of the insured vehicle was given to the answering opposite party on dated 08.02.2013 whereas the theft had taken place on 04/05-02-2013 in the night and the FIR was also lodged on 07.02.2013. According to the answering opposite party, the information was given to the answering opposite party with delay. According to the condition No. 1 of the insurance policy, the information about loss and damages of the insured vehicle is to be given immediately and the insured should corporate with the insurance company in securing the conviction of the offence; the insured belatedly informed the police and the insurance company regarding the theft of his vehicle, thus such act amounts to clear breach of the clause No. 1 of the policy, hence the complainant is not entitled for indemnification of the claim. It is further alleged that at the time of incident, the truck driver was the Zakir Hussain, who did not possess the valid and effective driving license, but misrepresenting the facts, the insured has shown Charanjeet Singh as the driver at the time of occurrence; on such account, no cause of action has ever arisen in the matter against the answering opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment on 05.06.2011 wherein it is held as under:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission the appellant – complainant has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned judgment is against facts, evidence and law. The District Commission has failed to conside