Delay in notifying the insurer does not justify repudiation of a validated insurance claim.

1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:
“Mr. Sumit Sharma s/o Sh Moolchand Sharma, owner of Motor cycle, vide registration No. DL7SBP3774 had parked the vehicle outside of his office at Gaur City, Noida in the morning. When he came in the evening, found his motor cycle missing. After much tracing, he made 100 No. call to police at Noida, UP. The motor cycle was insured from Daryaganj Delhi from OP.
Son of complainant lodged FIR after two days and intimated OP after 09 days. He filed claim before OP after getting NO Trace report from UP Police. The claim was rejected by OP. There after complainant filed this complaint.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 22.7.2016, whereby it held as under:
“It is clear that in event of loss of goods / vehicle, insured / complainant has to inform the insurer / OP within 48 hours so that OP can find out true facts about the case and cause of loss. In this case, intimation was given after 9 days to the OP for theft of vehicle / motor cycle which supports the citations and claim rejection was justified by OP.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the rejection of claim was justified. Complainant has not been able to establish deficiency of respondent in rejection of claim on concrete evidence. Hence, complaint is dismissed without any order to cost.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant / Complainant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission failed to appreciate the documents produced before the commission. The Appellant further submitted that the respondent company is not justified in repudiating the claim of the Appellant. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum.

4. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.

5. We have perused the Appeal, Reply of the Respondent and Impugned Order.

6. The main question of consideration before us is whether the Respondent is justified in repudiating the claim of the Appellant on the ground that there was a delay of two days in informing the police authorities and a delay of nine days in intimating the Respondent company.

7. On perusal, we find that the Appellant has placed on record the report of the concerned police control room where the information about the theft was given immediately after the incident by the Appellant through phone call. According to the written report of the concerned police control room, the information was received by the official on 1.10.2014 at 18.5 p.m. about the incident of theft which was occurred on the same day. However, the written complaint was filed in the concerned police station within 48 hours by the Appellant in the present case. However, it is pertinent to mention here that there is a delay of nine days in intimating the Respondent company.

8. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Civil Appeal No. 653/2020 titled as Gurshinder Singh v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2020) I CPJ 57 (SC):I (2020) SLT 702 , in decided on 24.1.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the same issue and decides it on merits, which to the extent is relevant reads as under:
“15. We find, that the second part of Condition No. 1 deals with the ‘theft or criminal act other than the accident’. It provides, that in case of theft or crim