None appears for the appellant. However, respondent is present. He has filed the decision to support  his case.

2.        Since the matter has already heard previously but it was pending only for filing surveyor report, we are inclined to dispose of the matter as available on record because it is a matter of 2013.

3.        This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle  bearing Regd.No.OR-06-F-4074 has purchased the insurance policy  vide policy No.163800/31/09/6300001860 for a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/-   from the O.P for the  period covering from 09.07.2008  to 08.07.2009. The complainant has alleged that on 12.07.2008, the vehicle was stolen at night near his house at Podapada . The matter was reported on 17.07.2008 before the police  and also reported to the Insurance company.  It is alleged inter alia that the O.P did not settle the matter. So alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

 5.       The O.P filed the written version stating that the complaint is false and vaxious and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

6.        After hearing of both counsels, the learned District Forum has passed the following  order:-

                        Xxx                 xxx                         xxx

“ In view of the forgoing discussion we find on the petition of complaint which is accordingly allowed with a direction to the opposite party the insured amount to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/-( Rupees six lakhs thirty thousand) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of this present case i.e 03.09.2010 till the date of actual payment. The Oposite party is also further burdened with compensation of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) as a whole which includes the cost of litigatiion.Which in our considered view would meet the ends of justice in the instant case.”

7.         In appeal memo it is  submitted by the appellant that the impugned order is defective and illegal because they are not considering the written version with proper prospectives. According to him the policy condition no.1 has been violated for which they have  repudiated the claim.  Clause-1 of the policy condition is very clear to show that theft of the vehicle should be informed immediately. Clause-5 specified for the safeguard of the vehicle. Clause no.8 show that due observation  and fulfillment of the terms and  conditions must have been confirmed. Since all these policy conditions are  not obeyed , the claim is repudiated. Learned District Forum has not applied the judicial mind to these facts and have passed the impugned order illegally. So he submitted  to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  the respondent informed about the occurrence of theft on the next day to the insurer. There is no error .Apart from this, while the vehicle is parking near his house on the next day morning,  it was stolen away . As such proper steps have been taken  and  he filed all  documents  and police submitted its report stating that the “fact is true but no clue”. Thus, there is no fault from the side of the respondent .He submitted to dismiss the appeal.

 9.    Considered the appeal memo and submission of respondent. Perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.        It is admitted fact that the vehicle was  stolen away while parking near his house at night  on 12.07.2008   and the matter was reported to the Insurance Company when the policy was in force. It is also admitted fact that the IDV  value of the vehicle is Rs.6,30,000/-. It is admitted fact that the FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Learned District Forum analyzed the materials properly and they have explained the delay of information to the insurer and the police. Apart from this the final report of the police shows that the fact is true. He also relied on the decision reported in Omprakash Versus. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. 2018 (1) OJR 45 (SC).

11       It is settled in law that sitting over the claim for unreasonable period is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. In this case, it is admitted fact that during currency of  the policy the vehicle was stolen. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has lodged the F.I.R on 17.07.2008 before the police and informed to the insurer. Now question arises whether the policy conditions have been complied by the complainant. The policy condition no.1 : in case of theft  the matter should be  immediately noticed to the insurer and the police. From the decision of  Omprakash (Supra), it is very clear that delay must be explained. The aforesaid decision has also cited in Gursinder Singh vrs. Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.  in Civil Appeal No.  653 of 2020 disposed of on 24.1.2020 where Their  Lordships  observed  at para-18,19,20 which are as follows:-

                         “xxx   xxx   xxx

    18.  We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra) that in such a situation if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view. We find, that this court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator.

19.   We find, that this court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that the Consumer Protection Act aims to protecting the interest of the consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. We find, that in Om Prakash( supra) this court has rightly held that mere delay in intimating the insane company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine.

20.   We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occured and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and  when the surveyors/ investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.”

With due regard to the aforesaid decision,  it appears that the decision of Gursinder Singh (Supra) has not overruled  the decision Om Prakash (supra). But it held in the latter decision that  there should be  immediate reporting to the police or insurer. Even in case of delay, same has to be pleaded ad proved by insured.

12.           Keeping in the mind of the aforesaid principles of law, we have gone through the F.I.R lodged on 17.07.2008  which shows that while the vehicle was parking near the house of the complainant in the night of 12.7.2008, in the next morning he found that it was stolen. FIR is not clear the FIR was lodged on 17.07.2008  when occurrence took place on 12.7.2008 night. It is only stated in FIR that they  searched for vehicle and lodged FIR. But  the manner of searching through evidence thereto have not been proved by the complainant.  The police report is also not clear explaining the delay  in lodging FIR.  The report to the  OP   is also not made clear by the complainant as to delay in informing police or insurer. It appears that the complainant has not complied condition No. 1 of the policy. Therefore, learned District Forum without considering the case  on proper prospective passed the impugned order. The other condition with regard to the safeguard of the vehicle need no discussion because the vehicle was parking near the house of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant being illiterate person did not know about the requirement of the detail explanation in the FIR to be given by the complainant. Moreover, he submitted that even if assuming that FIR is  lodged in delay by the complainant without explaining delay but the O.P has not settled the claim till filing of the case and thus OP has deficiency in service on their part by sitting on claim made by complainant.

13.      Considered the above fact and circumstances by observing that the delay has to be explained  by the complainant but the O.P has got equal error for not settling the matter. Balancing of the case of both parties, we are of view that complainant should get opportunity to lead evidence to explain delay  to prove the Policy condition no.1 as per the decision cited above. Hence, for decision of case,  we remand the matter to the learned District Forum to allow both parties to  lead evidence on the point of delayed  information to the police and insurer by complainant and for delay in settling the claim by OP. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter  to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing and dispose of the case in accordance with law  on the isseus as discussed above within 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 26.12.2022 to take further instruction from it. Learned District Forum is directed to dispose of case as per evidence produce before it without being influenced any observation made by us except issues and principle of law culled out.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.