MOHAN LAL vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition was dismissed for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are discussed below:

THE petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short, the District Forum ). He alleged that though his insured tractor was stolen in the night of 11 -05 -2005, the insurer (National Insurance Company respondent before us) repudiated the claim. THErefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, he requested payment of the insurance claim of Rs.3.85 lakh with interest prevailing in the market, and Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for harassment and Rs.5,500/ - towards litigation costs. THE insurer (opposite party OP/ respondent) resisted the complaint pointing out that the underwriting office of the insurer received intimation about the theft on 04 -07 -2005 though the theft had allegedly taken place on 11 -05 -2005. THE FIR regarding the theft of the tractor was also dated 15 -05 -2005, i.e., four days after the alleged theft. It was also contended by the OP that the complainant was not the owner of the tractor as there was no proof of his ownership.

AFTER considering the pleadings, evidence and documents on record, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing the OP to pay Rs.3.85 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. after three months from the date of the theft till payment and Rs.5,500/ - as litigation costs. The District Forum also directed that these orders be complied with within one month of the date of the order.

AGGRIEVED by this, the insurance company went up in appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission ).

IN its impugned order, the State Commission noted that a similar controversy had been decided by this Commission in First Appeal No. 321/2005 (New INdia Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, decided on 09 -12 -2009). The facts in that case were that the complainant s vehicle was stolen on 08 -04 -2000 and he reported the theft to the police on 10 -04 -2000, i.e., two days later and informed the insurance company on 17 -04 -2000, i.e., nine days later. IN the said judgment, this Commission observed as under: - Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in National INsurance Company Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The said judgment was in a totally different context. IN the said case, the plea taken by the INsurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of the terms of the Policy. The plea raised by the INsurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane. IN the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the INsurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the INsurance Company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have traveled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabadi (scrap dealer). IN our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the respondent /complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant INsurance Company within a reasonable time. We are not going into the other question regarding violation of Condition No. 5 of the INsurance Policy as we have non -suited the respondent/complainant on the first ground.

(Emphasis supplied)

RELYING on the ratio of this judgment, the State Commission held that the much longer delays on the part of the complainant in this case in informing the insurer as well as the police of the alleged theft were ruinous and, therefore, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the complainant has filed this revision petition.

WE have heard Mr. Miihhir Kumar Chaudary, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent /insurance company.

IN this case, the facts of the delays are clearly admitted. Though learned counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to state that the complainant had informed the underwriting office of the insurance company on telephone about the theft, this is very unlikely in view of the simple fact that even the FIR was registered after several days delay. Moreover, had such an intimation been given, there was no earthly reason for the respondent insurance company to not get the matter immediately investigated. Mr. Chaudhary finally submitted that because the tractor was insured and it was stolen, some relief should be granted. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra has emphatically argued that in view of the law on the subject, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim which stand is, in our view, entirely valid.

THE ground in the revision petition or the submissions of the leaned counsel for the petitioner thus did not bring out any point of fact or law which could warrant our intervention under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE revision petition was dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.