IMPORTANT POINT
Denial of Claim – there is delay on part of the appellant in intimating the police regarding occurrence of the alleged theft, the appellant’s claim has rightly been denied by the insurance company on this ground.

ORDER

Dr. (Mrs.) Monika Malik, Member—This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 351/2017 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant are that after getting financial assistance from the opposite party no.2-Mahindra Finance Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘finance company’) he had purchased a Bolero bearing registration no.MP-07 GA-5621. The subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1-insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) for a period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.4,58,000/-. During the currency of the insurance cover, in the intervening night of 20-21.08.2016, the subject vehicle got stolen when it was parked outside his house, of which FIR was lodged with the Police Station Hajira, Gwalior. When the vehicle was not traced, the police filed Final Report (FR) before the court which was accepted by the court on 04.02.2017. The insurance company was also informed on toll free number twice on 21.08.2016 and the claim form along with requisite documents was submitted. The appellant alleged that the insurance company vide letter dated 08.03.2017 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant informed the insurance company after 11 days, which amounts to deficiency in service. He therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the insurance company approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party no.1/respondent-insurance company in its reply raised preliminary objection that vide letter dated 23.01.2017 clarification was sought from the complainant regarding delay and when the complainant did not provide any clarification and it was found that there was violation of policy terms and conditions the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 08.03.2017. The complaint is therefore not maintainable. As per complainant, the subject vehicle was stolen on 20.08.2016 of which FIR was lodged after two days and the reason assigned was that he was searching for the vehicle. The insurance company was informed after 11 days i.e. on 02.09.2016 whereas it is necessary to inform the insurance company within 48 hours. The claim was not payable on the ground of delayed intimation, since it is violation of policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It was therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The opposite party no.2 finance company in its reply raised preliminary objection that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and for any act of the insurance company, the finance company cannot be held liable. Since the present complaint is related to payment of insurance claim, there is no liability of the finance company. As per agreement executed between the appellant and the finance company the appellant is liable to repay the financed amount with interest. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the finance company. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the police and the insurance company were intimated timely about the theft. The insurance company has thus wrongly repudiated the claim. He argued that the insurance company has denied the claim merely on technical grounds and the District Commission has erred further, in dismissing the complaint. He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company argued that there is delay in intimation of alleged theft to the insurance company as well as the police. Since there was delay in