MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Yadram S/O Ram

SH . Yadram, the complainant, got his truck insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kath Mandi, Rewadi, the OP. The truck was stolen during the intervening night of 21st -22nd December, 2010. Police report was lodged on 25.12.2010 in P.S. Dharuhera. The insurance Company was informed on 04.01.2011. Succinctly stated, there was delay of 4 days'' in lodging the FIR and 15 days'' in informing the insurance company.

BOTH the fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainant. The insurance company was directed to pay the insured amount/benefits of the insurance to the respondent/complainant.

THE State Commission placed reliance on First Appeal No.43/2014, titled Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar, decided on 10.03.2014. This appears to be a case pertaining to the State Commission. In that case, reliance was placed on Insurance and Regulatory Development Authority, Ref : IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011, dated 20.09.2011, which is, for our benefit, is reproduced here as under : - JUDGEMENT_66_LAWS(NCD)12_2014.htm The State Commission also came to the conclusion that delay of 14 -15 days'' is not significant in such a case.

THE counsel for the parties explained that as a matter of fact, the alleged thieves of the car have been arrested. The case is pending against them. As per the record, they have sold the car to somebody else. However, this remains the fact that the car could not be traced till today. Non recovery of car till now is a significant fact.

THE counsel for the respondent/complainant has also cited a case of this Commission, titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Venkata Swamy, Revision Petition No.2852 of 2013, decided on 06.02.2014. The facts of that case are different. It was held in the said case that there was delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.

HOWEVER , it was bounden duty of the driver or the owner to inform the insurance company, immediately about the incident. The Surveyor was appointed after the incident. The vehicle had already been sold to someone else. The Supreme Court of India, in case of theft, titled 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 for a below 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 the present case, the petitioner failed to prove that the report could not be lodged due to unavoidable circumstances. In the cited case, the vehicle was in the custody of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool. The vehicle was not stolen. It was confiscated. Consequently, we have pressed the above said notification in circulation and made the award, in the cited case.

THE facts of the present case are entirely different. In view of the factual position, we set aside the orders passed by the fora below, accept the revision petition and dismiss the complaint.