vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh dated 24.11.2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner complainant against the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint on limitation as well as merits.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that he purchased tractor No. MP54-A-5093 and Trolley No. MP-54-A-5094 after taking a loan of Rs.3,49,000/- from OP No.2 Bank. It is alleged that OP No.2 bank with a view to secure its loan contacted OP No.1 insurance company and purchased an insurance policy for the said tractor and trolley in the name of the complainant. The insurance premium was paid by the bank and debited to the leger account of the complainant. It is alleged that on the night of 30.04.2007, the tractor trolley was stolen. FIR regarding theft was lodged at PS Chandiya on 04.05.2007. The written information regarding theft was given to OP No.2 bank vide letter dated 07.05.2007. It is alleged that on the receipt of the said intimation, the Branch Manager of the bank conveyed information to the insurance company. Despite of the receipt of intimation regarding theft, the insurance company failed to settle the insurance claim, which according to the complainant is deficient in service.

OP No.1 Insurance Company in its written statement admitted having insured the tractor and trolley. It was further denied that any intimation regarding theft was given to OP No.1 or the insurance clam was filed. Thus, according to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part.

OP No.2 also resisted the complaint on merits. Both the OPs pleaded that consumer complaint was barred by limitation.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence did not find merit in the complaint. The District Forum accordingly dismissed the complaint on merits as well as on limitation.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission, did not find merit in the appeal and while concurring with the order of the District Forum, dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable because they have ignored the fact that insurance policy was obtained through OP No. 2 Bank and intimation regarding theft of the tractor and trolley was given to the Opposite Party through letter dated 07.05.2007 addressed to Manager of OP No.2 Bank. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to copy of said letter dated 07.05.2007.

We do not find merit in this contention. It may be noted that although the petitioner has pleaded that intimation of theft of tractor was conveyed to the OP vide letter addressed to the Branch Manager of OP No.2 Bank but the petitioner has led no evidence to show vide which mode the letter was conveyed to the Branch Manager. He has neither stated that the letter was delivered personally to the Branch Manager or he has mentioned if the letter was sent by post. There is no endorsement regarding mode of communication on the record. In absence of any evidence on this regard, we find it difficult to believe that said letter was delivered to the manager of the OP Bank. Even if, it is assumed that said letter was received by the Bank Manager, there is no evidence on record that this letter ever reached the insurance company. Thus, in absence of any intimation of theft of tractor and trolley, the OP No.1 insurance company cannot be held deficient in service by not entertaining the insurance claim.

Looking from the different angle. Even if, for the said of arguments, it is assumed that intimation conveyed vide letter dated 07.05.2007 was received by the opposite party then also, the fact remains that admittedly the intimation of theft was given after a delay of seven days from the date of theft. Even as per admission of complainant, FIR was registered after a delay of four days with the concerned Police Station.

The question which needs determination is whether or not the delay in giving intimation of theft to the insurance company is fatal to the claim of the petitioner? This question came up before the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C ) No. 12741 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010, where the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus: "Admittedly, the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.05.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did not state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.09.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.01.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer for as omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."

In this case also, admittedly the theft took place on the night of 30.04.2007 and intimation of theft was given by the petitioner to insurance company on 07.05.2007, after a delay of seven days. Thus in view of the law down by the Supreme Court, the respondent insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the petitioner who himself has not complied with the terms of the insurance policy.

In view of the discussion above, this is a clear case of violation of terms of insurance policy. As such, we do not find any fault in concurrent finding of the fora below which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.