National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Md. Sallauddin

Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member

This is a Revision Petition filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short, the Insurance Company) against the concurrent findings of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dated 02.12.2019 and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khagaria (in short, the ‘District Forum), dated 25.07.2018, which had allowed the Complaint. The District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay the sum insured for the vehicle, which was stolen for an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was a delay of 27 days in filing of FIR regarding theft of the vehicle before the concerned Police Station and another 30 days in informing the Insurance Company. The vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle (Bolero pick-up Van). He cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 653/2020, decided on 24.01.2020. The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that being a Revision Petition, in case of concurrent findings by two Consumer Commissions, there is very limited role of this Commission in view of a number of Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Orders of the two Commissions suffer from illegality as the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that have been quoted by the two Commissions in support of the Complainants are the Orders of delay in intimating the Insurance Company.  In these Orders, the question of delay in informing the police/filing of FIR has not been an issue. In the Order of Gurshinder Singh (supra), it has been held that delay in informing the Insurance Company about the occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.

I have perused the record.

It is a fact that there is a theft of the vehicle. It is also a fact that the FIR has been lodged only after a delay of 27 days. As held in Gurshinder Singh (supra), in matters relating to theft of a vehicle, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender. In this regard, I would like to quote the relevant portions of the Order as under:

We find, that the second part of Condition No. 1 deals with the ‘theft or criminal act other than the accident’. It provides, that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co­operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set   in   motion   and   steps   for   recovery   of   the   vehicle   could   be expedited.  In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and   recovering   the   vehicle.     Per   contra,   the   surveyor   of   the insurance   company,   at   the   most,   could   ascertain   the   factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.

It is further to be noted that, in the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation.

Both the State Commission and the District Forum have interpreted the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which had allowed for certain delay in intimation to the Insurance Company as also applicable for delay in filing of the FIR. To this extent, the Order of these two Commissions are wrong and suffer from illegality as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases have held that filing of FIR has to be immediate and have only allowed delay in intimation to the Insurance Company.

In view of the aforesaid, the Petition is allowed by setting aside the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.