Fayyaz Ali vs Branch Manager, General Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant -Fayyaz Ali against the impugned Order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand in Appeal. No. 194 of 2013, vide which the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

The summarized factual background is that the Complainant insured his Tata truck with the Respondent on 27.08.2008, and the coverage was valid until 26.08.2009. On the night of 26-27.09.2008, while the truck was parked at Piran Kalivar, the helper/second driver was murdered, and the truck was looted. The Complainant filed an FIR (No. 415/2008) at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite repeated oral and written applications, along with fulfilment of all formalities, the Complainant did not receive any response from the Insurance Company. A Legal Notice dated 04.08.2009 was sent to the Respondent, followed by a reminder Notice on 21.04.2010 through Registered post. The value  of the truck was Rs. 17,00,000/- and the Respondent failed to pay the claim amount, constituting a deficiency in service. Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of the insured amount, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Haridwar.

The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 22.06.2013 dismissed the Complaint. The Petitioner filed his Appeal before the Ld. State Commission which, vide the impugned Order dated 20.03.2015 dismissed it, and affirmed the Order of the Ld. District Forum.

This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

Both the Ld. Fora below had dismissed the claim of the Petitioner/Complainant on the ground that he had not intimated about the looting/theft of the vehicle promptly to the Insurance Company, which was therefore justified in repudiating his claim. The Ld. State Commission in Para 9 of its impugned Order had specially taken note of the contents of the repudiation letter dated 14.4.2013 and consequently dismissed his Appeal with the following observations –

“13. The complainant has lodged an F.I.R. through other person promptly on 27.09.2008 as is evident from the copy of F.I.R. (paper No. 23), but the appellant has not filed any evidence on the record to show that any intimation was sent to the opposite party immediately just after the incident.  There is no evidence in the form of written application, which can prove the immediate intimation to the insurance company.  The respondent has stated in its written statement that the appellant had intimated the insurance company after about one year of the incident, but there is a letter of investigator sent to the appellant on 08.12.2008, which shows that the appellant had intimated the respondent-insurance company sometime in the month of December, 2008, i.e. about one or two months later.  After perusal of the record it is clear that the complainant had never intimated the respondent promptly or within two-three days, therefore, the citations above noted are fully applicable in this case also……”.

In doing so, the Ld. State Commission had relied on certain earlier decisions of this Commission being “Gyarsi Devi and Ors.  Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.and Anr.; IV (2011) CPJ 30 (NC)”,  “Siraj Khan  Vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd.and Ors.; III (2012) CPJ 562 (NC)”, and “Kuldeep Singh  Vs.IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ; 2013 (1) UC 562”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has however in its recent decision in “Gurshinder Singh  Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 612”; has held that delay in reporting about the theft or criminal act pertaining to the insured vehicle, to the Insurance Company is not fatal especially if the Insured had been prompt in reporting about the same to the Police.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in this allowing the Appeal of the Insured in the aforesaid case and by considering its earlier decision in “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance”, (2017) 9 SCC 724; (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 759; had observed inter alia –

“18. We concur with the view taken in Om Prakash, 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 hypertechnical view.  We find that this Court in Om Prakash 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…….

We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred 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.”

The facts involved in the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, on account of which the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below in dismissing the Petitioner’s complaint on the ground of delay in reporting about the crime/theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company since he had admittedly lodged the FIR after the incident promptly with the Police are not sustainable.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed after setting aside the Orders of both the Ld. Fora below.  The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the insured value of the vehicle in question within two months from the date of this Order alongwith the interest @ 6% p.a.

In the event of non-compliance of this Order, the amount to be paid shall attract a penal interest of 12% p.a.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.