Beena Acharya W/O Shri Sriniwas Acharya vs Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

C. Viswanath Presiding Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner Smt. Beena Acharya challenging the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, "the State Commission") in FA No. 2015/456.

Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the Petitioner/Complainant was insured with the Respondent/Opposite Party. During the currency of the Policy, the vehicle was stolen on 03.08.2014. The Police registered an FIR on 15.08.2014. The Insurance Company received intimation on 12.09.2014. The Respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the Police was informed after 12 days and the Insurance Company was intimated after more than 30 days. The Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/15/163 before the District Forum. The Complaint was resisted by the Respondent by filing written statement and stating that the Insurance Company was informed after about 1 month and 9 days from the date of theft and even the FIR was lodged after 12 days. The claim was, therefore, not payable as the Policy conditions were breached. The District Forum, however, allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent to pay Rs.59,397/- to the Petitioner together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs,5,000/-. The order was to be complied within one month, otherwise interest @9% per annum was payable on the insurance amount.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the State Commission being FA No.2015/456. The State Commission allowed the Appeal by order dated 18.02.2016 and dismissed the Complaint.

Hence, the present Revision Petition. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the Parties and perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Police was informed about the theft on 03.08.2014 itself. The Police, however, advised that the FIR would be lodged after inquiry. Police then filed the FIR on 15.08.2014. Thus, there was no fault of the Petitioner in giving information to the Police and it was the Police which had registered the FIR late. The Police filed the final report after investigation stating that the culprits could not be apprehended. Learned Counsel argued that the final report submitted by the Police was a sort of confirmation of the theft of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the Respondent was liable to pay the Insurance Claim of the Petitioner. With respect to the delay in intimating the Insurance Company, it was stated that in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court had not considered the immediate intimation to the Insurance Company as an essential requirement under the Policy in case of theft and even if there was some delay in giving information to the Insurance Company, the claim was to be allowed.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company stated that there was no averment in the Complaint in respect of giving intimation to the Police about the theft on 03.08.2014 as stated by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Commission. Clearly this was an afterthought. The fact was that the FIR had been lodged after 12 days on 15.08.2014. He also stated that it is true that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another, Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017, decided on October 4, 2017 had allowed the Insurance Claim even if there was some delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. The delay, however, had to be explained. The Complainant had not explained the delay in the present case. Even in the case of Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. (Civil Appeal no. 653 of 2020) decided on 24.01.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had agreed with the decision in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another (supra), but had clearly stated that the claim was admissible only if the FIR had been lodged immediately or at least in a reasonable time. In the present case, the FIR had been lodged with a delay of 12 days. These two Judgements, therefore, are not applicable in the facts of the present case. The claim of the Petitioner cannot be allowed as important terms and conditions of the Policy had been violated. The State Commission had rightly allowed the Appeal of the Insurance Company and dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the intimation to the Police as well as to the Insurance Company was given very late.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both the Parties and have examined the record. In a recent case, Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr., (Supra) observed that delayed intimation to the Insurance Company would not forfeit the total insurance claim if FIR had been lodged immediately within a reasonable time and all other conditions are met. The claim of the insured can be considered, even if the intimation to the Insurance Company had been given with delay, provided information to the Police is given within a reasonable time. In the present case the FIR was lodged after 12 days. There was a delay in giving intimation to the Police, even though the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the information was given to the Police on 3 rd August itself, but the Police did not lodge the FIR. No evidence, however, has been filed in this regard nor the same been pleaded in the Complaint. In these circumstances, I find that one of the important conditions of the Policy has been grossly violated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 536, that if any condition of the Policy has been violated then the claim may be settled on non-standard basis up to 75% of the otherwise admissible claim. In the present case, neither the Police was intimated immediately nor information given to the Insurance Company within a reasonable time. The Police, however, filed a final report in the matter after investigation and it was found that culprits could not be apprehended. This lays support to the occurrence of theft of the vehicle, in the absence of any other claim by the Insurance Company. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to allow the insurance claim at 70% of the IDV of the vehicle.

Based on the above discussion, Revision Petition No.1261 of 2016 is partly allowed and the Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.41,578/- (70% of the IDV of Rs.59,397/-) to the Petitioner along with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint before the District Forum . When interest is being provided on the insurance amount, there is no justification for any separate compensation. Accordingly order of the District Forum for award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is set aside. The cost of litigation of Rs.5000/- is, however, maintained. The order be complied within a period of six weeks.