Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagpal Singh

R.K. Agrawal, President Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), against the Order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1555 of 2010, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, affirming the Order dated 09.06.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 450 of 2008.  By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein, and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant/Respondent the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within one month from the date of the said Order, failing which simple interest @ 6% per annum was directed to be paid on the said amount from the date of the claim till realization as also Rs.1000/- as litigation costs.

The facts in brief are that in order to earn his livelihood by self-employment, the Complainant/Respondent had purchased a Dumper, bearing Registration No. HR 38 E 5731.  He had taken an insurance policy from the Insurance Company for the Dumper, which was valid for the period from 17.10.2006 to 20.06.2007 and the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.3,00,000/-.  During the validity period of the insurance policy, on 09.12.2006, when the Dumper was standing at GT Road, Dadri Badhpura Municipality, some unidentified miscreants stole the same, for which the Complainant/Respondent lodged a report with the Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 11.12.2006 vide FIR No. 687/2006 under Section 379 IPC.  The Complainant/Respondent also informed the Insurance Company in writing about the theft of the Dumper and also sent a copy of the FIR to it on 19.12.2006.  Subsequently, he also sent the documents sought for by the Insurance Company, including the Final Report dated 26.06.2007 submitted by the Police before the Court of CJM, District Gautam Budh Nagar.  However, the Insurance Company vide their letter dated 16.01.2008 repudiated the Claim on the ground that intimation about the theft had been given to the Police with a delay of two days and to it with a delay of ten days.  Even after protracted requests, the claim amount was not paid to the Complainant/Respondent.

The Complainant/Respondent filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay to him the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. as also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Upon notice, the Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing its Reply before the District Commission.  It was contended on its behalf that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy require immediate intimation to the Police as well as the Insurance Company and as there was aforesaid delay in intimating about the theft to the Police and the Insurance Company, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim was legal and justified and the Complaint was not maintainable in view of the case of Devender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC).  In the said Case, there was delay of 4 days in intimating about the theft of the vehicle to the Police and of about a month in intimating to the insurance company and this Commission had held the repudiation of the claim made by the complainant therein justified.

Further, it was stated by the Insurance Company in the present case that an Investigator had been appointed to investigate the circumstances under which the theft had taken place.  The Investigator came to the conclusion that the claim made by the Complainant/Respondent was false as he had not arranged a meeting with the Driver and did not furnish the second key of the vehicle in question, which proved that the insured vehicle was not properly locked.

The District Commission on appreciation of the material available before it came to the conclusion that it was a genuine case of theft and there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Complainant/Respondent.  The District Commission, therefore, held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim without any reason and, consequently, while allowing the Complaint issued the afore-noted directions to the Insurance Company.

Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed the Appeal before the State Commission, which too dismissed the Appeal, affirming the Order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Insurance Company.

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and gone through the material on record, including the repudiation letter dated 16.01.2009 (page 61 of the paper-book).  While the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company justified the repudiation of the claim made by the Complainant/Respondent, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent stated that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in unjustifiably repudiating the claim.

In support of his stand, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent relied upon the judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2020 (2) SCALE and Jaina Construction Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 2022), decided on 11.02.2022.  In the said Cases, the vehicles had been stolen and there was a delay in informing about the same to the insurance companies, prompting the insurance companies to repudiate the claim on the ground of said delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the claim was otherwise genuine, the insurance companies could not have repudiated the claim on the ground of delay, more so when the FIR had been lodged immediately after the occurrence of theft and the Police had filed Challan before the concerned Court.  In the present Case also the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim made by the Complainant/Respondent pursuant to theft of his Dumper on the sole ground of delay and both the Fora below have found it to be a genuine case of theft though there was a delay of two days in informing and lodging report about the occurrence of theft of the vehicle in question with the Police concerned and of ten days in intimating about the same to the Insurance Company.  Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also does not dispute with the settled position of law and states that the matter may be disposed of in view of the judgments and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Cases, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent.

In this view of the matter, the controversy involved stands settled and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim, which had been made by the Complainant/Respondent after occurrence of theft of the vehicle owned by him, by the Insurance Company on the sole ground of delay is not tenable, as it is not the case of the Insurance Company that it was not a genuine case of theft.  The State Commission and the District Commission have rightly directed the Insurance Company to honour the claim, which need no interference by this Commission.

The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.