vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS

The vehicle belonging to Shri Dharamender, the complainant, was stolen on the night intervening 24/25 April, 2010. The FIR was lodged after a week i.e. on 1 May, 2010. The th st intimation was given to the insurance company on 12.7.2010 i.e. after the delay of 78 days. The State Commission placed reliance on circular issued by Insurance Regulatory Development

Authority ( in short, ''IRDA). The complainant should have informed the insurance company immediately. Operative part of the circular reads as under: "The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents. The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claims activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances."

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has also invited our attention towards National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259 . Relevant para 12 of that judgment reads as under: "12. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.

He has also placed reliance on another authority reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kulwant Singh IV (2014) CPJ 62 (NC) where there was delay of 4/5 days in intimation of theft. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Bench reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bobby Joseph & Anr. IV (2014) CPJ 360 (NC) where the delay was condoned in respect of Railway Department.

We do not locate substance in all these arguments. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 made the relevant observation which runs as follows : "Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 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 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 19.9.1995 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 20.1.1995 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 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 the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras 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."

Similar view was taken by this Commission in the celebrated authority of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, first appeal No. 321 of 2005, decided on 9.12.2009. In this case, the word ''immediately'' was discussed extensively. The reliance was placed on United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8. It was clearly, specifically and unequivocally held that judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) is not applicable to this case.

Similar view was taken by this Commission in another revision petition No. 2951 of 2011-Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. pronounced on 9.11.2012 . This Commission also took the similar view in the case of Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, revision petition No. 3183 of 2011 decided on 12.7.2012 by a bench of this Commission headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.

This Bench also took the similar view in Tata Motor Finance Limited vs. Ramesh Kumar and another, revision petition No. 781 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014.

The delay of 78 days was not explained. The complainant has failed to make a case that there was delay in intimation due to unavoidable circumstances as per the IRDA circular.

We hereby set aside the orders rendered by fora below and dismiss the complaint.

The revision petition stands allowed in the above terms.