Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/23/623

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABDUL SHAKEEL - Opp.Party(s)

MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 13.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.651/2019 by District Commission,Jabalpur-2)

 

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                                 …         APPELLANT

 

                  Versus

 

ABDUL SHAKEEL.                                                                                                …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

02.07.2024

 

            Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

            This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-insurance company is directed against the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.651/2019 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

2.                We have gone through the pleadings and documents as also the relief claimed in the complaint.  On going through the same it is revealed that the complainant’s truck bearing registration number MP-20

-2-

GA-5662 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 09.02.2016 to 08.02.2017 for IDV Rs.12,00,000/-. During the insurance cover in the intervening night of 02.12.2017 and 03.12.2017, the subject vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons when it was parked in transport nagar near last gate of which intimation was given to the police and the insurance company.

3.                The complainant alleged that on claim being made to the insurance company, same was repudiated on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as also to the insurance company.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay IDV of the subject vehicle with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 07.06.2019 to the complainant within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with costs of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded.

4.                Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings, and having gone through the record, we find that the subject vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 02.12.2017 and 03.12.2017 of which FIR was lodged

-3-

on 05.03.2018 which is evident from FIR (D-2) i.e. after almost 3 months of theft of vehicle. Similarly the insurance company was also intimated belatedly i.e. 05.03.2018, which is violation of policy terms and conditions. 

5.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr, I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) has held that “In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a

claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2022) CPJ 119 (SC).

6.                In the present case, admittedly the theft took place in the intervening night of 02.12.2017 & 03.12.2017 and the FIR was lodged on on 05.03.2018 i.e. after almost 3 months of theft of vehicle. Similarly the

-4-

insurance company was also intimated belatedly on 08.03.2018. The complainant tried to convince us by way of an application dated 04.12.2017 addressed to SHO, Police Station-Aadhar Taal (D-3) that he informed the police on 04.12.2017 itself regarding theft but the said application did not contain the seal and signature of any of the police official.  Also in the FIR there is nothing mentioned that on the basis of said application, the FIR was lodged. In the column of intimation received the date is mentioned as 05.03.2018. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the complainant informed the police on 04.12.2017. There is delay of 3 months in intimation to the police as also to the insurance company which is clear violation of policy terms and conditions. The complainant has also not given any valid reason for that delay in lodging FIR.

7.                In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of a considered view that the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as also to the insurance company.

8.                In such circumstances, the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint when there was clearly violation of policy terms and conditions by way of delayed intimation to the police as also to the

-5-

insurance company.  Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

9.                In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                 (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

              Acting President                        Member