Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of Truck No.OR-14R-4281 purchased a policy to insure the same with O.P. against the reliance goods package policy for the period from 31.08.2011 to 30.08.2012.  It is the case of the complainant further that while the vehicle was parking in the premises of the complainant, it  was   stolen   away   at night on 20.01.2012.  The complainant stated to have informed the police through telephone and police also started looking for  the vehicle.  However due to non-traceout of the stolen vehicle, the complainant informed the police in writing on 23.01.2012.  Although the same was registered on 07.02.2013 the complainant stated to have also informed the O.P. on 24.01.2012 after receiving copy of the F.I.R dt.23.01.2012.  In spite of the claim being lodged, the O.P. did not settle the claim for one year but later on they repudiated the claim on the ground that the information of theft has not been lodged immediately and thereby violating  the condition of the policy.  The complainant finding no other way challenged the repudiation and filed the claim.

4.  Per contra,the O.P. filed the written version stating that the vehicle has been registered with them and thee was theft of the vehicle in the night of 20.1.2012 but the information was not given to the police immediately and  they were informed on 24.1.2012.  The O.P. further averred that the policy condition clearly reveals that the case of theft should be informed immediately so as to make investigation and finalise the claim.  They submitted that when claim was not filed immediately, the risk is  not  covered or the O.P. will not indemnify the complainant.  On the other hand they justified the repudiation because of violation of the policy conditions.

5.  Learned Dist.  Forum after hearing both the parties passed the following order;

Xxx                       xxx                       xxx

    We,therefore,direct the OP-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakh) only to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 24.04.2012 till the date of payment and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only towards costs within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the complaint is disposed of.”

6.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Dist. Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the O.P.  According to him there is no proof or evidence to prove  that the complainant informed the police immediately.  He submitted that although the police was informed on 23.1.2012 but the F.I.R was lodged on 7.2.2012.  Moreover he states that after occurrence the Insurance Company was informed.  Learned Dist. Forum ought to have considered all these facts and decided the case.

7.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Dist. Forum has committed error in law by not considering the policy condition no.1 which clearly states that the policy will not cover if the information will not lodged immediately after the occurrence.  Learned Dist. Forum ought to have followed the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in AIR 2020 S.C page-1395 (S.  Vrs. Shiram General  Insurance Company Ltd. And another.  So he submitted to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order.

8.  Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the complainant has already adduced the evidence by stating that in the night of the occurrence of theft he has given phone call about the theft of the vehicle and police has also started location of the vehicle.  The complainant has also explained in the F.I.R that  on 23.1.2012 that he  took two days time to trace out the vehicle and as it was not traced out, he lodged the complaint.  He submitted that just in the next day i.e on 24.1.2012 they have also informed the Insurance Company but O.P. took more than one year to settle the claim.  So he submitted that the policy condition has not been violated by the complainant.  Hence he submitted that the order of the learned Dist. Forum is quite correct and legal and he supports the impugned order.

9.  Considered the submissions of both the parties, perused the D.F.R including the impugned order.

10.  The complainant is required to prove deficiency of service on the part of O.P.

 11.  It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been insured with the O.P. and during the policy in force the vehicle was stolen. 

12.  The complainant has filed the complaint following the affidavit where it is stated that just after occurrence in the same night  he gave phone call to the police and police has blocked the entry and exit to the premises.  Also it is available in the written F.I.R dt.23.1.2012 that the complainant has informed police.  It is clearly mentioned in police paper that he took two days time to trace out the vehicle and since the vehicle not available they have filed   complaint   on    23.01.2012    and    also    the Insurance Company on 24.1.2021.  The police paper is also clear to show that police has got information and proceeded for investigation and the final report has been submitted in this case.

13.  From the aforesaid material it is clear that the vehicle of the complainant has been stolen and he has informed OP  two days after the occurrence although he has given phone call to police  on the same night. 

14.  O.P has also admitted to have received the complaint on 24.1.2012.  The policy condition is also clear to  show that policy will not cover the claim if at all the occurrence of theft is not reported immediately.

15.  Now the question arises whether the word ‘immediate’ in the fact and circumstances of this case has been  proved.  It is now settled by Hon’ble Apex Court that if theft has been reported  immediately to  police and later to insurer, that amounts to compliance of word “immediate” as per condition of policy.

16.     With due respect to the aforesaid decision it is clear that the police has  been informed immediately but later on the insurance company was informed, the claim of theft has to be settled by the Insurance Company.   Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, in the instant case the complainant has proved through evidence on affidavit   that    he     has   informed    the police on telephone and written report has been submitted on 23.1.2012 and also the Insurance Company on the next day i.e. on 24.1.2912,it must be held that in the facts and circumstances, the complainant has proved by informing the occurrence of theft immediately. Therefore the question of violation of condition no.1 does not arise.

17.         Learned Dist. Forum after analyzing all the facts and circumstances also come to the conclusion that the policy condition has not been violated. Therefore this Commission is in view that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of learned   District Forum. So,  impugned    order    is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.    No cost.

D.F.R be sent back.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties.