IMPORTANT POINT
Intimation – the delay in intimation to the Insurance Company as also the purported transfer of the vehicle to a third party by entering into a sale agreement is no more a factor for the insurer to deny the claim Petitioner/ Complainant.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners/OPs/ Insurer under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the order dated 04.07.2022, passed by the learned Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in FA No.378/2017 wherein the State Commission partly allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent/ Complainant against the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (City), (‘the District Forum’) wherein the District Forum dismissed Complaint No.985/2013.

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

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is owner of vehicle No.UP-66 E-9989 Tata IVA, and had taken the insurance from the Petitioners/OPs from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012. On 20.12.2011 vehicle was stolen and on 30.12.2011 complainant’s power of attorney holder’s son Mr. Ashwinbhai lodged a complaint in the Vejalpur Police Station and the vehicle was not found thereafter. On 15.02.2012 a claim was placed before the insurance company and the same was repudiated on 07.08.2013. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

4. In reply before the District Forum, the Petitioners/OPs refuted all allegations in the complaint. While acknowledging that the vehicle was insured with them, the Petitioner emphasized that the policy was subject to specific terms and conditions. The Complainant failed to promptly report the theft to the police and to inform the insurer. OPs refuted the allegation 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 police as well as insurer. They contended that this delay deprived both parties of the opportunity to effectively search for the vehicle. The Petitioners/OPs contended that the Respondent/ Complainant had already sold the vehicle to third party namely Mr. Ashwin Premaji and therefore, the Respondent has no insurable interest in the vehicle. There was thus no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 15.06.2017 rejected the complaint on the ground of delay intimation to the police and the Insurance Company and held that the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim of the Respondent/Complainant and has not committed any deficiency in service or indulged in unfair trade practices with respect to the insurance contract.

6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned District Forum, the Complainant filed an Appeal No.378/2017 and the State Commission vide order dated 04.07.2022 partly allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:

11. As the matter was decided here in another matter where commission found that if the claim of the complainant is genuine one but there is delay in intimation to the insurance company and police if this is the only issue than on the basis of the non-standard, claim shall have to be awarded.

12. Here in the matter insurance policy is effective moreover, vehicle was also not found even after the investigation by the police and that’s why I would like to consider the factual aspect cumulatively. I would incline to allow 60% of the amount of claim without any interest to the complainant.

Final Order

(i) Appeal No.378 of 2017 is partly allowed.

(ii) The judgment and order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the DCDRC, Ahmedabad (City) in Consumer Complaint No.985 of 2013 is hereby modified.

(iii) Respondent are directed to pay amount of Rs.10,20,180/- without interest to the Appellant/Ori. Complainant.

(iv) No order as to cost in appeal.

(v) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties, an