AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner/complainant had purchased an excavator loader which he had got insured with the respondent for a sum assured of Rs.12 lacs. The said excavator loader was allegedly stolen on 26.11.2010 and an FIR was allegedly lodged with the concerned Police Station on 28.12.2010. However, the intimation of the theft was given to the insurer after more than 3½ years of the theft, the same having been given only on 27.06.2014. The complaint was therefore, repudiated vide letter dated 28.06.2014 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
" ..... Please refer your reported insurance claim intimated on 27/06/2014 towards loss to your vehicle under the above mentioned policy. We have gone through the details submitted by our good self in our call center and the report submitted by the investigator to our office and wishes to make following observations:
You have intimated the claim after a delay of 1309 days, please also refer to our letter dated 27/06/2014 wherein you were asked to provide clarification regarding the delay in intimation of the claim, but till date you have not given any clarification for the delay intimation. Thus you have deprived us an opportunity to ascertain the necessary facts related to the theft including without limitation, cause of loss and circumstances at early stage.
In this regard, we refer to the Policy Condition No.1 - Notice shall be given to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident loss or damage in the event of any claim.
Since there is violation of Policy Condition, therefore, we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable and we are closing the case as 'No Claim". ........."
Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the respondents inter-alia on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.
The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is not in dispute that there is more than 3½ years' delay in reporting the theft to the insurer. The said delay resulted in breach of a mandatory term of the insurance policy which required insured to give immediate notice of the theft to the insurer. There is absolutely no explanation for such an inordinate delay of more than 3 years and 7 months in reporting the theft to the insurer. The reporting of the theft is not a mere formality, the purpose of the intimation being to enable the insurer to investigate the claim at a time when the evidence in respect of the claim may still be available. The insurer loses an opportunity to investigate the claim and make efforts to trace the vehicle if there is such an abnormal delay in reporting the theft by the insured.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the concurrent view taken by both the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.