Gurlal Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

The petitioner/complainant purchased a Maruti Alto K10 car and after obtaining a temporary registration valid from 30.03.2012 to 29.04.2012, got the same insured with the respondent. On 04.07.2012, the car was allegedly parked by the petitioner/complainant outside Delhi Gate at Ferozepur. When the petitioner/complainant came back from the market, he found the car stolen. The matter was reported to the police on 11.07.2012 and intimation of the theft was given to the Insurance Company on 25.07.2012. The claim lodged by the petitioner/complainant with the Insurance Company, however, was rejected vide letter, which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:- 1. Date of theft is 4.7.12. But you have lodged the FIR on 11.7.12 after 7 days and given the intimation in this office on 25.7.12, after 21 days.

As per FIR, the vehicle no. is HR 99 LD 9267 whereas as per other papers, the vehicle no. is HR 99 KK Temp - 9267.

Original R.C. is not submitted to the Investigator because your Temp. RC has been expired on 29.4.12 whereas the theft occurred on 4.7.12. So claim is not payable without registration number.

Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The said complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same ground on which the claim was rejected.

The District Forum, vide order dated 14.10.2013, allowed the claim and directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 3,02,033/- to the petitioner/complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 06.10.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured/complainant was required to report the theft of the vehicle to the police immediately after the theft was detected and also give immediate intimation of the said theft to the insurer. There was a delay of seven days in reporting the theft of the vehicle to the policy and 21 days delay in reporting the theft to the insurer. The learned counsel for the complainant/insured submits that the police did not register the FIR, when approached immediately after the theft. We, however, cannot accept the contention since there is no evidence of the complainant/insured even having written a letter to the concerned Superintendent of Police or even to the concerned SHO, stating therein that he had approached the concerned police station on 04.07.2012, but his report was not recorded. In the absence of such a letter, we cannot accept the oral contention that the concerned police station had refused to record the FIR, when approached by the complainant on 04.07.2012. We see no reason for the police officer not to record FIR on 04.07.2012 and later record the same on 11.07.2012. We, therefore are not inclined to accept the explanation given by the petitioner/complainant.

It was a mandatory condition of the insurance policy that the insured would give immediate intimation of the theft of the insured vehicle to the insurer. There is no satisfactory explanation for not giving said intimation to the insurer. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy being sacrosanct, the insurer stood relieved of all its obligations under the policy on account of the aforesaid delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to it. It has to be kept in mind that the requirement, of reporting the theft to the insurer immediately it comes to the notice, is not a mere formality, the purpose of the requirement being to enable the insurer to carry out an independent investigation into the matter and make efforts to trace the vehicle in coordination with the concerned police station. This purpose cannot be sufficiently achieved if the insurer is not informed immediately after the theft, since valuable evidence may be lost due to the delay in reporting the matter to the insurer. Therefore, the insurer was fully justified in repudiating the claim on account of the aforesaid delay in giving intimation to it.

The temporary registration taken by the complainant/petitioner had admittedly expired on 29.04.2012. The petitioner/complainant did not obtain regular registration of the vehicle in terms of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act. As a result, the vehicle was being driven without registration on the date it came to be stolen. The complainant/petitioner committed a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy by plying the vehicle without registration. This was yet another valid ground for repudiating the claim lodged by the complainant/petitioner.

For the reasons stated herein above, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.