Insurance claims for theft cannot be repudiated solely based on a delay in intimating the insurance company if the theft is otherwise genuine and reported to the police immediately.

O R D E R

( 04.02.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant, is directed against the order dated 17.3.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 106/2019, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of motorcycle, bearing registration No. MP08- MQ 0975, which was purchased by him from the opposite party No.1. He had got the subject vehicle insured with the opposite parties No.2 and 3/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’). The complainant further submitted that on 2.11.2017, the subject vehicle was stolen regarding which police and Insurance Company were intimated. The complainant alleged that the Insurance Company did not pay the claim amount. Therefore, he filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

Heard. Perused the record.

Learned counsel for complainant argued that from message dated 20.3.2018 (Exhibit R-2), it is clear that the complainant had given theft intimation on 5.11.2017, since only after that a reference number was created. The Insurance Company has created evidence later, in the form of letters which have been produced before the District Commission, which are not even the ground for repudiation of claim. The Insurance Company has denied payment of claim amount on the basis that the theft was not immediately reported to the Insurance Company. The ground taken by the Insurance Company is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid and he, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned order and argued that since there was inordinate delay on part of the complainant regarding intimation of alleged theft to the Insurance Company, his claim has been rightly been denied. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

We find that the Insurance Company has denied payment of claim vide letter dated 31.3.2018 (Exhibit R-1), wherein the reason for claim denial is mentioned as:-

“On careful perusal of the documents submitted and record of our call centre, it has been observed that the said vehicle was theft on 02/11/2017, whereas you have intimated the loss to the insurance company on 28.11.2017, i.e. approximately after 26 DAYS from the date of loss.”

The claim has only been denied on the basis of delay in intimation to the Insurance Company.

We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) has approved the view taken by it in the case of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and another 2018 (4) CPR 204 (SC) and has held that if the claim is denied merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the Insurance Company, about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking hyper technical view. Hon’ble Supreme Court has specified keeping in account the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra) that the Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting the interest of consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. It is maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra) and further recapitulated by the Apex Court in the case of Gurshinder Singh (supra) that this Court has rightly held that merely delay in intimating the Insurance Co. about the theft, should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim, which has been otherwise proved to be genuine.

In the instant matter, we find that the complainant had lodged FIR immediately after the occurrence of theft of the vehicle. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurushinder Singh (supra), we find that the opposite parties No.2 and 3/Insurance Company is not rightful in repudiating the