Sagar Kumar vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

PETITIONER /Complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''Act'') for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.3.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ''State Commission''), vide which (Appeal No. FA -11/649) filed by the Respondent/Opposite party against order dated 1.8.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, ''District Forum'') was allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts are that petitioner is engaged in the business of tours and travels. Being owner of a Tata Sumo car he had obtained the insurance on 30.6.1991 of the car for an amount of Rs. 5.140 lac for a period of one year from respondent company. On 25.12.2006 around 10 p.m., the vehicle was stolen and petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Sector -58, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar on 27.12.2006, and informed the respondent about the incident of theft. Thereafter, petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent and filed alongwith it the FIR claiming Rs. 5.1 lac. Respondent repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had informed it after six months about the incident, by sending a letter on 27.6.2007. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, ''District Forum'') alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent with a prayer that respondent be directed to pay him Rs. 4,68,111/ - towards the costs of vehicle, Rs. 98,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/ - towards costs of litigation.

RESPONDENT opposed the claim and filed the written version stating that it was informed for the first time on 27.6.2007 by the petitioner about the theft of the vehicle i.e. after six months of alleged theft, which being in breach of Condition No. 1 of the Policy. Thus, petitioner was not entitled for indemnification. The District Forum on consideration of evidence of both parties held the respondent deficient and directed it to pay the insured sum alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of claim, and also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - for harassment and mental agony.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same.

HENCE , the present revision. 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 the vehicle was stolen on 25.12.2006 and information to the Police was given immediately thereafter, i.e. on 27.12.2006 on the very next day after the theft of the vehicle and petitioner also informed the respondent about the theft of the vehicle. The dealing officer of respondent gave instruction to the petitioner to submit some relevant papers for submitting the claim. Under these circumstances, State Commission has wrongly held that information was given to the respondent only on 27.6.2007.

IN support, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court, reported as ''National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (Civil Appeal No. 3409 of 2008) decided on 8.5.2008'' in which it was held that; In case of theft, the claimant is entitled to claim 75% of the claim amount on non -standard basis.

On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that information about alleged theft was given to the respondent only on 27.6.2007, i.e. after about six months after the theft has taken place. Since, there was a long delay of six months and as such there is violation of the mandatory condition of the insurance policy. Thus, the claim of petitioner was rightly rejected.

IN support, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions of this Commission, namely; i) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company and another (Revision Petition No. 2894 of 2011 decided on 14.3.2013);

ii) Virender Kumar Vs. The New India Assurance Company and another (Revision Petition No. 2534 of 2012 decided on 7.11.2012) and

iii) M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mr. K. Eswara Prasad (Revision Petition No. 2555 of 2012 decided on 22.7.2013)

THE State Commission had reproduced the relevant condition of the policy in its impugned order and has held; 7. Condition No. 1 of the Policy is as below;

Condition No. 1

Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured will give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

The main contention of the counsel for appellant is that the respondent -complainant is not liable to any compensation because there has been violation of terms of Agreement on his part, in as much as the factum of theft was conveyed to OP Insurance Co. almost six months after the theft. The theft took place on 25.12.06, while the communication about the theft sent by the complainant -respondent is dated 27.6.07.

It was argued by the counsel for complainant -respondent that he had orally informed the Insurance Co. about the theft, and it has also been mentioned in the aforesaid communication, and in his affidavit also. The plea of oral information is unacceptable. The Insurance Co. should have been informed in writing about the theft. The term and condition stipulate that any such information must be conveyed immediately to the Insurance Co. The word used is immediately and the delay of six months cannot be considered as immediate. There has as such been violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Agreement and the complainant -respondent is not entitled to any claim.

Counsel for the respondent has referred to a case of : SC (2008) CPJNitin Khandelwal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., but in that case, the Insurance Co. was immediately informed of the robbery of the vehicle, and as such, that case will not be of any help to the complainant -respondent.

It must, however, be observed that the District Consumer Forum has dealt with the case in a very slip shod manner and has not even mentioned in it''s judgment as to what were the violation of terms of agreement. It is necessary to present relevant facts in an order even though in a brief manner.

The result is that the appeal allowed. The claim of the complainant -respondent shall stand dismissed. 12. We are in full agreement with the reasoning given by the State Commission. In "New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane", (First Appeal No. 321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009), this Commission has observed;

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 insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.

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.

AGAIN in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha -Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010, the Apex Court has held; 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 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 vehicle and make 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 present case, since there was delay of about six months in informing the respondent about the theft of vehicle, it is a clear cut violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is well settled that under section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

THUS , no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21(b) of the Act, nor the impugned order suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.

ACCORDINGLY , present revision petition having no merits is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.