An insurance claim for theft cannot be settled on a non-standard basis (partial payment) unless the insurer proves a fundamental breach of policy conditions or clear contributory negligence by the insured that directly facilitated the loss.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

ORDER

1. Present appeal preferred on behalf of the complainant/appellant assails Order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandari Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the complaint was partly allowed on non-standard basis as under:-

“(i) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.15,78,802/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Two) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

(ii) The O.P. will pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.15,78,802/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.10.2017 till realization.

(iii) The parties shall bear their own cost of this complaint.”

2. The appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’ and ‘opposite party’ respectively, as appearing in the complaint, for sake of convenience.

3. In brief, complainant purchased an insurance policy for truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807 for the period 22.03.2015 to 21.03.2016. The driver of the vehicle namely, Anuj Kumar Gupta on 06.09.2015 parked the truck in parking at Bahadrabad, Haridwar. On 07.09.2015, some unknown persons committed theft of truck after offering intoxicating substance to the driver (Anuj) as well as cleaner (Suresh). The incident was reported at PS: Bahadrabad as well as complainant intimated the incident to OP through e-mail on 08.09.2015.

A written intimation was further forwarded to OP on 24.09.2015. In support of the claim, complainant further submitted the requisite documents as desired by the Insurance Company. An information regarding loss of one of the keys of the aforesaid vehicle is stated to have been earlier lodged at police station.

However, the claim was repudiated by OP vide letter dated 27.07.2017 since the incident was reported to the Insurance Company with a delay of two days, on account of which the vehicle could not be searched. The insured is further stated to have violated condition No.1 of the policy. The claim was further repudiated on account of non-submission of both the keys of the truck by the insured/complainant.

4. Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim by OP, complainant preferred the complaint before learned State Commission.

5. Learned State Commission noticed that a written complaint had been given by Pradeep Kumar Choubey on 09.09.2015 to Officer In-Charge, PS: Bahadrabad after the incident was narrated by the driver Anuj Kumar Gupta and cleaner Suresh, on gaining consciousness. The contention raised on behalf of the OP doubting the incident of theft was not accepted, considering the investigation report dated 20.11.2015. The judgments relied upon on behalf of OP were stated to be distinguishable but the claim was allowed only on non-standard basis for Rs.15,78,802/- (i.e. 75% of the assured value of truck at Rs.21,05,069/-), after referring to Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance Company & Another, IV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC) and Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC).

6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that learned State Commission erred in allowing the complaint on non-standard basis on 75% of the IDV since there is no dispute as to the factum of theft. He submits that no reason has been reflected by the learned State Commission for allowing the claim on non-standard basis and thereby deducting 25% of the IDV. Learned counsel further assails the Order passed by the learned State Commission whereby the interest @ 9% has been awarded on the claim amount from the date of