IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Policy – Theft – Delay in intimating theft of vehicle to insurance company – Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) against the order dated 15.09.2022, passed by the learned U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘State Commission’) in FA No.649/ 2014 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent/OP against the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi (‘the District Forum’) wherein the District Forum allowed Complaint No.07/2013.

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 the owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.UP-65-AT-7251 and had taken an insurance policy from Respondent/OP from 13.08.2012 to 12.08.2013. On 14/15.08.2012 vehicle was stolen and on 15.08.2012 he informed the police by dialing 100 about the theft of the vehicle and thereafter, he lodged the Crime No.132/12 under Section 379 IPC on 22.08.2012 at Jaipura Varanasi Police Station. On 01.09.2012 intimation was also given to the insurer about the theft. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 02.11.2012 on the ground of violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy in question due to delay in intimation of 8 days to the police authorities and 16 days in intimation to the insurance company. Being aggrieved, he filed a consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

4. In reply before the District Forum, OP refuted all allegations in the complaint. While acknowledging that the vehicle was insured with OP, they 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. The OP refuted the allegation that the insurance claim was repudiated solely due to delay in lodging the FIR, asserting that there was breach of crucial policy terms and conditions, including the delay in reporting theft to police as well as insurer. They contended that this delay deprived both parties of the opportunity to effectively search for the vehicle. There was thus no deficiency in service on their part and sought the complaint to be dismissed.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 13.02.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/OP as under:

“ORDER

The complaint of complainant Pradeep Kumar Yadav is accepted. The opposite parties are jointly and severely ordered to pay the insured amount of Rs.4,40,000/- of the insured amount of vehicle within one month from the date of this order and for mental, physical and mental agony Rs.5,000/- and legal expenses Rs.2000/- after the expiry of time limit 7% interest will be payable from the date of filing this complaint. Apart from this, the rest of the reliefs sought by the complainant against the opposite parties are set aside. (Extracted from translated copy)

6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned District Forum, the OP filed an Appeal No.649/2014 and the State Commission vide order dated 15.09.2022 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:

5. The insurance claim has been rejected by the insurance company on the ground that after the vehicle was stolen, the theft was reported with extreme delay. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the policy was obtained by the complainant from another company, which had lapsed. After the vehicle was stolen, a new policy was obtained by suppressing the information regarding the old policy and thee police report was lodged with extreme delay, therefore the insurance company was cheated by the complainant. Accordingly no claim is payable. The legal position in this regard is clear that if the insured vehicle is stolen, the first Information should be filed immediately. As per the facts of case law New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sharif Ahmad IV (201