Final Order / Judgement

(Dated : 20/04/ 2022)

Passed by Shri.Atul Alsi, Hon’ble President.

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint alleging wrongful repudiation of his claim and thereby claiming insurance claim amount alongwith compensation and cost.

2.            Facts in brief are that, the complainant is a resident of Ballarshah.  The complainant owns a Tata Four wheeler vehicle bearing No.MH-34, AB-6078, which he had purchased under finance from Cholamandalam Finance Company on 9/1/2013. The said vehicle was insured with the OP/Cholamandalam Insurance Co.Ltd. for the period between 30/1/2017 till 29/1/2018 for the ID Value of Rs.2,38,707/-. On 20/6/2017, at night at about 12.30 a.m., when the vehicle was parked near the house of the complainant, an unknown person committed theft of the vehicle, as an outcome of which an offence U/s 379 of IPC came to be registered against unknown persons 21.6.2017 in Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur under Crime No.971/17. Police carried out investigation, however, the vehicle as well as accused could not be traced out and hence the police station Ramnagar filed “A” Summary final report in Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Court, Chandrapur.

3.            The complainant also gave intimation of the incidence of vehicle theft to the OP Insurance Company. The financer Cholamandalam Finance Company released the relevant original documents of the vehicle to the complainant in November, 2017 and hence, immediately thereafter, the insurance claim of Rs.2,38,707/-came to be filed with the OP insurance company. However, the OP repudiated the claim for the reason of delay of 137 days in intimating the accrual of theft to the OP Insurance company, vide its letter dated 26/4/2018 and 2/5/2018. The complainant had to file the claim belatedly by 137 days due to delayed release of original documents of the vehicle by the Financer, however, the OP, without considering this bonafide reason, arbitrarily rejected the insurance claim of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this petition came to be filed claiming insurance amount of Rs.2,38,707/- alongwith Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

5.         After admission of the complaint, notice was served on OP. OP filed its reply and denied the allegation levelled against it. OP admitted the insurance of complainant’s vehicle for the relevant period. However, it averred that the offense of theft was allegedly committed on 20/6/2017 in the morning and the matter was reported to the police on 21/6/2017 at 3 p.m. even though the complainant resides near the police station. Further, the intimation of alleged theft was given to the OP for the first time after a delay of 137 days. As per stipulations of the insurance policy, it is incumbant on the insured to intimate the occurrence of theft to the insurer immediately.  Further the reason offered by the complainant for belated intimation is not bonafide. Hence the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant by issuing two letters dated  26/4/2018 and 2/5/2018 for the reason of delayed intimation.

6.            The counsel for both the parties argued on the lines of their respective stands taken in the complaint and written version respectively.

7.      We have gone through the complaint, written version, documents and the affidavits filed by the parties. After careful scrutiny of the documents filed on record, and after hearing the parties, we record our findings in respect of the allegation of deficiency in service, as follows..

      REASONING

8.        The incidence of theft of the vehicle was committed on 20/6/2017 at night and the complainant has claimed that he had intimated the accrual of theft of the vehicle to the OP Insurance company. However, there is nothing on record to prove this averment of the complainant. Hence we have to accept the say of the OP that the intimation of the theft of vehicle was given to the OP for the first time on 4/11/2017 when the complainant filed insurance claim i.e. after a delay of about 137 days from the incidence. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the intimation of the offense of theft shall be given to the OP immediately after the incidence. The complainant has offered reason for late filing of the claim that due to delayed release of original documents of the vehicle by the Financer, he had to file the claim belatedly by 137 days.  However, the complainant has not explained as to why the intimation of the theft of vehicle was not given to the OP Insurance company immediately after its accrual, though the incidence came to his knowledge immediately on the next day of its accrual. Further, for intimation of the accrual of theft, no documents are required and the intimation can even be given on the toll free number of the insurance company. Hence the reason offered by the complainant for delayed communication of the incidence to the OP Insurance company is not bonafide one. Obviously, due to delayed communication of the incidence, the OP Insurance company could not appoint a surveyor and could not investigate the matter through him, immediately after the incidence.

              In a similar case, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in its judgment and order dated 11 January,2016 passed in the matter of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs. Jai Prakash, in Rev.Pet.No.2479 of 2015 has observed as under,

        “For the reasons stated herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that the insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the said theft came to his knowledge and mere intimating the police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since admittedly, there was substantial delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company in both these cases, the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim on account of the aforesaid default on the part of the insured.”

               The law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission supra squarely applies to the matter in hand. Hence, in view of this lapse on the part of the complainant, we see no fault on the part of OP Insurance company in repudiating the claim of the complainant for delayed intimation.  We find no merit in the case and it is liable to be dismissed.  Hence we proceed to pass the following order..

Final Order

    1. The complaint bearing No. CC/19/54 is dismissed.

    2. Parties to bear their own cost.

    3. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

(MRS. Kalpana Jangade(Kute)       (MRS. Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)]      (MR. Atul D.Alsi)

       HON'BLE MEMBER                        HON'BLE MEMBER            HON'BLE PRESIDENT