IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim cannot be repudiated only on the ground of delay on part of complainant in intimating Insurance Company.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member.—Revision petition preferred on behalf of the Petitioner I Complainant assails Order dated 18.09.2018 passed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in FA No. 275 of 2018, whereby the Order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) dismissing the complaint, filed by the complainant, was affirmed.

2. Petitioner and the Respondents are hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant and Opposite parties’ as appearing in the complaint preferred before the District Forum, for sake of convenience.

3. Factual matrix as noticed in the impugned Order may be briefly referred. Complainant is the registered owner of tractor Sonalika 60 HP model Di 2015, bearing registration No. PB-11-BR-3490, which was insured with the opposite party for the period 25.02.2016 to 24.02.2017. On 11.09.2016, tractor was driven by the father of the complainant, for taking delivery of trolley from village Dargapur. However, since it developed a technical snag on the way, father of the complainant proceeded to fetch a mechanic for getting the fault repaired, leaving behind the tractor. On return the tractor was found to be missing and could not be traced. Officials of PS Amloh were informed of the theft but they took a technical plea that the area of theft of vehicle did not fall within their jurisdiction but falls within jurisdiction of PS Bhadson. A wireless message was also sent by officials of PS Amloh to PS Bhadson. Thereafter father of the complainant visited PS Bhadson and the FIR No. 0097 was registered on 29.09.2016 under Section 379 IPC.

4. Opposite party No. 1 (i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) was accordingly informed by the complainant on 03.10.2016, since 01.10.2016 and 02.10.2016 happened to be public holidays. However, Branch Manager of OP-1 asked the complainant to visit after 4-5 days without doing the needful formalities. The intimation was again given by the complainant to the new Branch Manager of OP-1 on 20.10.2016.

5. It is further case of complainant that vide letter dated 21.11.2016 complainant was asked by Insurance Company/OP-1 for explaining the reasons of delay in giving the intimation to OP-1, since the information of theft was not immediately given after the incident of theft. On receipt of said letter on 08.01.2017 complainant forwarded a reply explaining the reasons. However, the claim was repudiated by OP-1/Insurance Company on the grounds of delay in lodging the claim with the Insurance Company.

6. Aggrieved against the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for release of claim amount of Rs.4,75,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft till realization and compensation for mental agony with cost.

7. In the Written Version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party it was submitted that an explanation had been sought from the complainant regarding delay of 40 days in giving the intimation of theft to the insured, since condition No. 1 of the insurance policy stipulates that information of theft or criminal act is required to be immediately given to the police and insured shall cooperate with the company for conviction of offender. Further competent authority after taking into account documents of claim repudiated the same vide letter dated 06.03.2017, since complainant failed to immediately notify the Insurance Company in terms of condition No. 1 of the policy.

8. Ld. State Commission referring to clause 1 of the insurance policy ‘Ex. OP-1’, which provides for giving immediate notice to the Insurance Company by the insured, upon occurrence of loss or damage and observed that since the FIR was lodged by the father of insured after a gap of 18 days and the intimation was further given to the Insurance Company by complainant only after a gap of 21 days, it depr