CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.
Raj Shekhar Attri, President and Preetinder Singh, Member
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Hardeep Singh – Respondent
Appeal No.75 of 2024
Decided on 23.7.2024

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Lodgement of FIR – after the vehicle is stolen, a person, who lost his vehicle, would immediately lodge an FIR and the immediate conduct that would be expected of such a person would be to assist the police in search of the vehicle.
(2) Claim – The registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would substantiate the claim of the claimant that the vehicle is stolen.
(3) Surveyor – Not only that, but the surveyors appointed by the insurance company are also required to enquire whether the claim of the claimant regarding the theft is genuine or not.
(4) Claim of Theft – If the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, upon inquiry, finds that the claim of theft is genuine then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR, in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen.
(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.
(6) Words and Phrases – That the term – cooperate as used under the contract needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances.
(7) Repudiation of claim”the act of the appellant in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, which fact was also not intimated to the respondent, is not justified and the said act amounts to deficiency in rendering service.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Theft of Vehicle – Held, after the vehicle is stolen, a person, who lost his vehicle, would immediately lodge an FIR and the immediate conduct that would be expected of such a person would be to assist the police in search of the vehicle. The registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would substantiate the claim of the claimant that the vehicle is stolen. Not only that, but the surveyors appointed by the insurance company are also required to enquire whether the claim of the claimant regarding the theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, upon inquiry, finds that the claim of theft is genuine then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR, in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen – That the term – cooperate as used under the contract needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances. While assessing the – Duty to cooperate for the insured, inter alia, the court should have regard to those breaches by the insured which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Usually, 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 – Besides, when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured – Even the legal notice dated 17.12.2020, Annexure C-5 served by the respondent was not responded by the appellant. Had the said rejection letter been conveyed to the respondent, the appellant should have replied the legal notice stating therein that the claim has already been rejected but it is not so the case of the appellant. Under these circumstances, once it has not been proved on record that rejection of claim was ever reported to the respondent, as such, this complaint having been filed on 04.01.2021 cannot be said to be time barred – It is therefore held that the act of the appellant in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, which fact was also not intimated to the respondent, is not justified and the said act amounts to deficiency in rendering service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice. The District Commission was thus right in partly allowing the consumer complaint – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 6 to 18].

Result: Appeal Allowed.