ORDER

A. K. Tiwari, Acting President.—Challenging the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.148/2017, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal.

2. By the impugned order the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant on the ground that the opposite party-insurance company repudiating the claim on the ground of delayed intimation to the police and the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant pointed out that the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration number MP-16 C-7109 was insured with the opposite party insurance company for the period w.e.f. 27.08.2013 to 26.08.2014 for IDV Rs.6,79,000/- and the subject vehicle was stolen on 07.06.2014 when his driver Deepak took the vehicle to bring the family members of his friend Anand Agrawal. He argued that the complainant tried to lodge the FIR immediately but the police did not lodge FIR. Thereafter at the instance of S.P. the FIR was lodged on 24.06.2014 therefore the insurance company has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim on the ground that the complainant informed the police and the insurance company belated. The District Commission without considering the aforesaid aspect erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent/opposite party insurance company supporting the impugned order has argued that the District Commission has committed no error in dismissing the complaint. He submits that there is delay in lodging FIR and informing the insurance company which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the impugned order. On going through the FIR (C-5) we find that the subject vehicle was stolen on 07.06.2014 and FIR was lodged on 24.06.2014 i.e. after seventeen days of theft. No reasons for the said delay were assigned. Learned counsel tried to convince us that when the complainant made a complaint to the SP thereafter the police lodged the FIR. On going through the document C-4 i.e. the application dated 10.06.2014 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, we find that there is no receipt with seal and signature. Also the complainant failed to prove that by which mode he served the said application. The insurance company vide letter dated 01.12.2014 (R-3) repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation to the police and the insurance company.

6. Law on this issue is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) has held that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police. 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. It is the police who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited I (2022) CPJ 119 (SC).

7. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that in case of theft immediate intimation to police is mandatory and in case of accident, immediate intimation to the insurance company is mandatory. In the case in hand, admit