Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased the policy for his vehicle bearing No. OR-04-J-1086 for the period covering from 25.12.2008 to 24.12.2009 and its IDV was Rs.14,51,500/-. It is alleged inter-alia that on 03.11.2009 the vehicle was stolen away by some unknown person. The matter was reported to the police who started the investigation. Further the complainant informed the insurer but the OP No.1 & 2 sat over the matter. Finding no other way the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that the matter was reported by delay thus violating the policy condition. Since, the policy condition has been violated the complainant is not entitled to any claim. According to the OP the information to the police or the insurer should be given immediately but the complainant informed the police about 40 hours after the loss of the vehicle. Moreover, it is stated in the impugned order that the explanation for delay has not been substantiated by the complainant. Since, there is violation of the policy condition, they repudiated the claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The dispute is allowed against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2. The OP No.1 is directed to pay the insured value amounting to Rs.14,51,500/- (Fourteen lakh fifty one thousand five hundred) to the insured within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay 9 % interest per annum on the awarded amount from the date of insurance claim till its realization. No cost. “
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper for the simple reason that the explanation has not been submitted by the complainant. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no delay at all and they have informed in the lunch hour to the police and they waited for searching the vehicle. Learned District Forum has passed the right order. Hence, the impugned order should be confirmed.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. No doubt the vehicle during currency of the policy was stolen away. No doubt the police was informed after the occurrence. It is also not in dispute that policy condition reveals that the theft of the vehicle must be reported immediately. Such word “immediately” has been interpreted by various decisions. In the case of Om Prakash -Vrs- Reliance General Insurance and Gurshinder Singh -Vrs- Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. & another, the delay if explained properly, there would be repudiation on the ground that no report is made immediately. In the instant case admittedly the police was informed on 5th day morning and the insurer was informed after 27 days. The information about the theft must be submitted immediately either to police or to the insurer. Since, the information has been already given within 48 hours to the police who went on investigation, we are of the view that there is hardly delay in forming the authorities. In the case of Om Prakash(Supra) and Gurusingder Singh (Supra) there is no restriction to inform either to police or insurer in delay if same has been explained rationally. However, we are of the view that since only one day left to inform the police and police has submitted final form showing case as true but no clue we are of the view that theft has been committed and same has been informed immediately and there is no discrepancy with such facts. Thus, it is proved that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of insurer as there is no violation of the policy condition in this regard.
10. Learned District Forum has awarded Rs 14,51,500/- but there is no basis for this. However, we are informed that the vehicle being older one would be only available on deduction of some amount from the IDV value. The vehicle is of 2008 and stolen on 2009, we found that it is appropriate to reach loss at consolidated amount for Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation payable by the OP to the complainant.
11. In view of aforesaid analysis, while confirming the impugned order, we hereby modify the impugned order by directing the OP to pay Rs.13,00,000/- within a period of 45 days to the complainant from the date of this order, failing which it will carry @ 12 % interest from the date of order till date of realization.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
