Timely notification of theft to insurers is essential, yet delays caused by police procedures do not inherently invalidate insurance claims.

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 852/2016 vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was affirmed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/Respondent is the registered owner of TractorNo.UP83W8949 (Eicher333) and had insured the said vehicle with the Opposite Party/

Petitioner under PolicyNo.461704/47/13/ 9700000092, effective from03.05.2013 to02.05.2014. On

27.06.2013, at about5pm, the tractor was allegedly stolen from the premises of GangaResort, ThanaUttar, Firozabad, but despite extensive efforts, it could not be traced. A theft report was lodged on11.07.2013 at ThanaUttar and registered as CaseNo.380/13 under section379IPC, with Final ReportNo.181/13 dated03.08.2013. As recovery remained impossible, the Court accepted the final report on23.11.2013. The Complainant states that he sent a registered Notice to the Insurer on10.12.2013, enclosing copies of the FIR, certified final‑report papers and all relevant vehicle documents, and demanded settlement of the insured amount. Repeated personal visits to the Opposite Party’s branch elicited no fruitful result, causing physical, mental and financial hardship. Aggrieved with the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Ferozabad.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 14.03.2016 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant Rs. 4,00,000/- within 30 days of the date of the Order along with Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation costs. The Petitioner then filed its Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 19.12.2016, dismissed the same.

4. We have heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the State Commission had failed to notice a fundamental breach of Policy conditions. The tractor was allegedly stolen on27.06.2013, yet the FIR was lodged only on11.07.2013, i.e. 13 days later, and no intimation whatsoever was given to the Insurer until a lawyer’s Notice dated10.12.2013. Such delay is fatal because it deprives the Insurer of any realistic opportunity to investigate the claim, a position firmly endorsed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.v.Parvesh Chander Chadha , Civil Appeal No.6739/2010”, and repeatedly applied by this Commission in “New India Assurance Co.Ltd.v.

Trilochan Jain, FirP policy by frustrating timely verification and coordination with the Police; That as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ United India Insurance Co.v.Harchand Rai ChandanLal , (2004)8SCC644”, and “ Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Millsv.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , (2010)10 SCC567”, the Insurance Contracts must be interpreted strictly and enforced only in accordance with their express terms. On that footing, the belated FIR and non‑notification constitute sufficient grounds to repudiate the claim; That the complaint is tainted by misrepresentation, although the tractor had been registered in2012, the Complainant procured the insurance in2013 by declaring the vehicle to be new, thereby breaching the doctrine of utmost good faith that underpins every contract of insurance. This deliberate concealment, coupled with the Complainant’s failure to allow an investigation, demonstrates an intent to defeat the Insurer’s legitimate defences, therefore the Complaint should be d