NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Vijay Kumar Jain S/O Gopal Jain

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12 -09 -2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 414/2013 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint, was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got his vehicle HR -23H -0200 insured from opposite party/petitioner w.e.f. 30.01.2008 to 29.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.12,33,100/ -. On 26.07.2008 vehicle was stolen and FIR was lodged on 31.07.2008. Complainant submitted claim to the opposite party, which was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint as complaint was premature. In such circumstances, District Forum vide order dated 01.06.2010 treated complaint as premature and opposite party was directed to settle complainant''s claim within four weeks with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint. Opposite party did not settle claim within four months and complainant served legal notice dated 17.12.2010 upon opposite party. Opposite party replied that claim has already been repudiated on 23.03.2010 before dismissal of earlier complaint. Again alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR and intimation to opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.12,33,100/ - with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was delay of five days in lodging FIR and delay of six months in intimation to insurance company, claim was rightly repudiated but learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as opposite party submitted false affidavit before District Forum, complaint was rightly allowed and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

IT is not disputed that FIR was lodged by complainant on 31.07.2008 in which date of theft of vehicle has been shown as 26.07.2008. It is also not disputed that complainant intimated to opposite party vide letter dated 02.02.2009 in which he mentioned that he lodged FIR and for these reasons could not give intimation to the opposite party. Thus, it becomes clear that there was delay of five days in lodging FIR and delay of more than six months in intimation to insurance company. This Commission in First Appeal No. 321/2005 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009 dismissed complaint as FIR was lodged after two days of theft and intimation to insurance company was given after nine days. Hon''ble Apex Court in - United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Harchandrai, 2004 8 JT 8 observed that delay in intimation to insurance company in theft cases is fatal. Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 Oriental Insruance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha observed as under: - - "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 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 the vehicle and made 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."

IN the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that as there was inordinate delay of five days in lodging FIR and delay of about six months in intimation to opposite party, opposite party has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim.

IN this case keys of ignition lock were left in the vehicle on account of which vehicle was stolen. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that door of the vehicle was locked but this argument is devoid of force because keys in the ignition lock were left in the vehicle and keys of door were not handed over to police, which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of policy.

LEARNED State Commission dismissed appeal only on the ground that false affidavit was submitted by opposite party on 09.04.2010 during pendency of first complaint. It appears that affidavit dated 09.04.2010 was filed by the branch office whereas repudiation letter dated 23.03.2010 was issued from divisional office and in such circumstances merely by mentioning in affidavit that matter is still pending claim could not have been allowed by learned District Forum and upheld by State Commission and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 12 -09 -2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 41/2013 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain and order of District Forum dated 28 -05 -2013 passed in Complaint No. 86/2011 Vijay Kumar Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.