AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. SA has been filed with a delay of 69 days as per calculation made by the Registry. IA/8312/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the IA and the case is taken up on merits.
Challenge is to order dated 25.03.2026, vide which First Appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission, vide its order dated 03.12.2025, dismissed the complaint and concluded that the complainant miserably failed to prove the theft of the vehicle on the said date and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs. State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission and also concluded that the complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle was stolen from the above site, stating further that no cogent or convincing evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the alleged theft of the incident. In the absence of convincing evidence, the bald statement of the complainant regarding theft of the vehicle cannot be relied upon. Hence, in the present case, there are concurrent findings of the both the fora below that the complainant has not been successful in establishing the facts of theft with cogent and reliable evidence.
The claim in question was repudiated by the respondent insurance company vide their letter dated 06.08.2024 on account of multiple reasons, including inordinate delay of more than 4 months in intimating the theft loss of the insured vehicle to the insurance company. The said letter is reproduced below:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Government of India Undertaking)
AUTO HUB. SCO 828, NAC MANIMAJRA
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Regd.
06/08/2024
To
M/s Narindera Stone Crusher, Vill. Alowal, Post Office Sarsa Nangal Roopnagar-140001-Pb.
Sub: Your Theft Claim of Truck Regd.No. PB-65-BC-9177 A/c M/s Narindera Stone Crusher Dt.24-10-2023 Covered under policy no. 122200312330390032027 valid from 29-06-2023 to 28-06-2024.
Dear Sir,
This is in continuation to our various communications exchanged with you on the above subject wherein vide letter dated 06/06/2024 and reminder dated 15/07/2024 you were requested to clarify about following issues:
1.Inordinate delay of more than four months in intimation of theft loss of the insured vehicle to the Insurance company.
2.It was also communicated that the vehicle was parked at a location as claimed by you but during fact finding it was found that the vehicle was not parked in that area. Your claim regarding the vehicle equipped with GPS system also did not match with the Google Timelines of Gurmeet Singh as per his statement, whereas he was found neither visited Nakodar nor Mata Ram Tea and Coffee Shop, Ghanauli at the relevant time which further shows that you have not given true facts, rather mislead the insurance Company with regard to the alleged theft of the Insured Truck.
3.Even the GPS location of the vehicle was never provided by Mr. Gurmeet Singh when contacted. Since Mr. Gurmeet Singh claimed that the insured vehicle was loaded with boulders on 23-10-2023 to be delivered at Aggarwal Sons, Zirakpur but the contact details of the said firm were not provided to the investigator Insurance Company which clearly amounts to misinformation and also the concealment of the material facts from the Insurance Company.
4.On stray enquiry from Mata Ram Tea and Coffee Shop actually known as Simran Confectionary Shop, said Mata Ram informed that on the intervening night of 23/24-10-2023, one Avtar Singh, watchman was on duty but even he was not aware of the alleged parking of the vehicle PB-65-BC-9177. It also shows that the vehicle was not parked in the parking area as claimed by you. Sh Gurmeet Singh could not provide any documentary proof of loading done on the vehicle from Narindera Stone Crusher and they were not maintaining any records for inward or outward movement of the vehicles, which further creates doubts of the facts claimed by you and your representative.
5.While referring to your response dated 23-07-2024, it observed that you have miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than four months in intimation of the claim to the Insurance Company, whereas as per terms and conditions of policy of Insurance duly communicated to you, immediate notice to the company is mandatory. This clearly amounts to gross violation of the policy condition. Moreover, your explanation to these facts is neither satisfactory nor substantiated through any documentary evidence. As regards your claim of technical error or overlapping activities in Google timeline resulting into apparent discrepancy, a heavy burden lies upon you to prove these facts, which even otherwise are not substantiated from your explanation and from records placed before the competent authority. All other explanations given by you in your reply notice dated 23-07-2024 are afterthoughts and cover up story which is not sustainable in the eyes of law nor substantiated from the facts on record. As regards your tendering a apology for not providing the details of Aggarwal Sons, you have still not disclosed the identity particulars and phone number etc. of that firm in your reply which further strengthens our doubts that it is a made up story and the alleged theft of the Insured truck seems to be manmade and manipulated both. You have further agreed that there was mismatch in as much as you further agreed that due to theft and confusion certain entries were missed. However, such explanation is neither justified nor acceptable to the competent authority as the same is without any basis and substance.
From the aforesaid detailed facts and circumstances, after affording due opportunity of being heard and going through your unsubstantiated response, the competent authority after due application of mind has now decided that in terms of the policy of Insurance, its terms and conditions attracting non-cooperation, misinformation and wrong information from your end besides non-observance of due and reasonable care in protecting the vehicle for which you were duty bound it has been decided that the claim warrants repudiation as the same is not payable. Therefore, the Insurance Company claims no liability and hereby repudiates the claim with respect to the alleged theft of your truck PB-65-BC. Although every precaution has been observed by the competent authority yet, on knowing any new fact the Insurance Company shall be withing its right to add and incorporate new grounds of repudiation as well. Hence your claim file is closed as no liability is made out against the Insurance Company.
This is for your information please.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Auto- Hub In charge
Section 51 (2) envisage Second Appeal to this Commission if the case involves substantial questions of law. What constitutes substantial questions of law and how it differs from mere question of law has been elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan ( deceased ) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Saraswati and Others (2022) 20 SCC 199. As per section 51 (3) such substantial question of law have to be listed in the memorandum of appeal. In the present case, following substantial question of law has been stated in the memorandum of Appeal:
i.Whether the consumer fora below erred in law in rejecting a theft claim despite an admitted insurance policy, registration of FIR, and subsequent police untraced report/judicial order placed on record by the Appellant?
ii.Whether a private investigator's opinion can override official police record and judicial acceptance/correction concerning untraced report, particularly in a theft claim?
iii.Whether delay in intimation to insurer, absent proof of fraud, collusion, or fabrication, can by itself defeat a genuine theft claim?
iv.Whether the fora below committed perversity by ignoring material evidence and by dismissing the State appeal in limine without proper adjudication of the record.
We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, District Commission and other relevant records and contentions of the appellant herein. Both the fora below, after considering the evidence before them, have come to the finding that the complainant has not been able to establish the facts of theft. Both the fora below have passed well-reasoned order(s). We are in agreement with these observations and findings and do not find any reason to interfere with the same. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the same is upheld.
Consequently, SA/540/2026 is dismissed.
Pending IA's, if any, stand disposed off.
Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.