NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Sh. Harpreet Singh

PETITIONER /opposite party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '') challenging order dated 14.1.2008, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh UT (for short, ''State Commission ''), vide which appeal filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed.

BRIEF facts are that respondent purchased a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.CH03-F-0113 in the year 2001. The said vehicle was insured with the petitioner vide comprehensive insurance policy for a sum of Rs.4.58 lakh and valid up to 5.8.2003. On 9.8.2002, respondent on a visit to Delhi alongwith his friend Sh. Kamaljit Singh was travelling in the said vehicle. Respondent ''s friend took the vehicle to see his relatives residing at C-62-B, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Unfortunately, the vehicle in question was stolen from that address and it was last seen between 6 A.M. to 6.30 AM on 10.8.2002. Sh. Kamaljit Singh lodged a theft report with P.S., Kalkaji on 10.8.2002, vide F.I.R. No.531 dated 13.8.2002. After completing investigation, police gave an untraced report, dated 29.5.2003. Respondent also informed of the loss to the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company, Sector 35C, Chandigarh on 10.10.2002. All relevant documents were submitted alongwith the claim including copy of the FIR and untraced report. In spite of completing all the formalities, petitioner did not process the claim. However, Petitioner vide letter dated 27.1.2004, informed the respondent that his claim was not maintainable as the said vehicle was being used by Sh. Kamaljit Singh as a taxi at the time of theft which was against the terms and conditions of the policy and thus repudiated the claim. Thereafter, respondent issued a legal notice dated 15.5.2004. However, Petitioner refused to settle the claim. Hence, respondent filed consumer complaint praying that petitioner be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.4,58,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the theft of the vehicle till actual payment. It was prayed that petitioner be directed to pay further sum of Rs.2 lacs on account of interest and other charges payable to Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, which had granted loan to the respondent for purchase of the vehicle in question. Further, a sum of Rs.1 lac has been sought as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs. Petitioner in its written statement took the plea that respondent was not on a visit to Delhi on the relevant date. Instead the vehicle was hired from the respondent by Airtel for official purpose for Mr. Kamaljit Singh, working as an Engineer with Airtel, C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mohali. Since, vehicle was being used as a taxi in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated. It has also been alleged that information of the alleged theft was given very late i.e. after a period of about two months, which is also a grave violation of the policy condition.

DISTRICT Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh (for short, District Forum '') vide order dated 23.5.2007, dismissed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same. Hence, this revision petition.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vehicle in question was being used as a regular taxi, which is in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore respondent is not entitled to claim compensation treating it as a non-standard claim. The claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated and the impugned order under such circumstances cannot be sustained. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent that there is no evidence on record to show that vehicle in question was being used as a taxi which has been rightly held by the State Commission. The petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent arbitrarily and illegally. In support, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon following judgments; i) Rajiv Rathod versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., I (2003) CPJ 206 (NC) and ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)

IN the present case, the State Commission has overlooked the basic issue involved in this case, as to whether there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy or not.

AS per respondent ''s case, vehicle was stolen on 10.8.2002 and FIR was got registered on 13.8.2002. However, intimation about theft of the vehicle was given to the petitioner only on 10.10.2002. Thus, there was a delay of two months in informing the Petitioner about theft of the insured vehicle. This Commission in "New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) " has observed as under; "9. In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. 10. Hon ''ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that the terms of Policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. The Policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported ''immediately ''. In the context of a theft of the car, word ''immediately '' has to be construed strictly to make the insurance company liable to pay the compensation ".

IN the present case, admittedly there is delay of two months in informing the petitioner about theft of the vehicle, Thus, there is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since, there is violation of the basic conditions of the insurance policy, the State Commission erroneously allowed the appeal of the respondent. The decisions of Rajiv Rathod and Nitin Khandelwal (Supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

FOR the forgoing reasons, we allow this revision and we set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs.