IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Immediate Notice – The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role.
(2) Notice in Writing – On occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is required to immediately give a notice in writing to the company.
(3) Claim – Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.
(4) FIR – In the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy.
(5) Delay – Mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of “duty to cooperate” of the insured.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is been filed by the Petitioner/OP-1/Insurer under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the impugned order dated 24.01.2019, passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (‘the State Commission’) in FA No.817/2016 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent/Complainant against the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur, (‘the District Forum’) wherein the District Forum dismissed Complaint No.197/2015.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Mahindra DI Tractor financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The tractor was insured with Petitioner/OP-1 vide policy No.015298403400 valid from 15.04.2014 to 14.04.2015. On 23.04.2014, at about 10:00 AM the Complainant discovered that his tractor was missing from his field where he parked. Despite searching, he was unable to locate. He approached Murud Police Station and lodged a theft report. The police advised him to search for the tractor for 4-5 days before filing the report. The Complainant notified the insurance company about the theft and made efforts to locate the tractor but could not locate. Eventually, on 02.05.2014, he filed a report with police and CR. No. 44/14 was registered under section 379 of the IPC against unknown persons. Subsequently, he repeatedly inquired with the insurer to process his claim, providing them all necessary details, including claim No.620778752. However, the insurance company avoided sanctioning the claim and requested additional documentation, including a copy of the FIR and an affidavit on a Rs.100/- stamp paper. Despite submitting the required documents, the insurer repudiated the claim without providing any valid reason, causing financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. Consequently, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, expenses of Rs.50,000/-, and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4. In reply, the Petitioner/OP-1 refuted all allegations in the complaint. While acknowledging that the tractor was insured with them, the Petitioner emphasized that the policy was subject to specific terms and conditions. They denied the Complainant’s claim that he promptly reported the theft to the police and informed the insurance company via phone, stating that the police did not record the report immediately and asked the Complainant to return after 4 to 5 days. Additionally, they disputed the assertion that the Complainant executed an affidavit on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper and submitted it to the insurer. OP-1 refuted the claim that the insurance claim was repudiated solely due to delay in lodging the FIR, asserting instead that there was a breach of crucial policy terms and conditions, including the delay in reporting the theft to both the police and the insurance company. They argued that this delay deprived both parties of the opportunity to search for the vehicle effectively. The Petitioner/OP-1 asserted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. In reply, OP-2, Mahindra Insurance Broker, asserted its role as a broker facilitating customers in obtaining suitable insurance policies to protect their interests. The Complainant approached them for information regarding insurance policies, and after consultation, decided to purchase a policy from OP-1. OP-2 clarified that it is the prerogative of OP-1 to determine whether to accept or reject insurance claims. As such, there was no cause of action against OP-2 and requested for its dismissal.

Top of Form

6. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 08.07.2016 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:—

“According to the same, it is very