SATISH KUMAR Vs ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 856 of 2012 - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Satish Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner is owner of Car No. HR40A-7311, which was insured by OP No. 2/Respondent no. 2 through OP No. 1/Respondent No. 3, who is authorized agent of OP No. 2 for a period of one year from 23.6.2009 to 22.6.2010. This car was taken by nephew of the complainant to Delhi and in the intervening night of 8-9/8/2009, car was stolen. Nephew of the complainant tried to search car, but could not find. Then, immediately he intimated to Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi about incidence and FIR was registered on 29.8.2009. It was further submitted that nephew of the complainant intimated incidence to the complainant and complainant intimated to OP No. 1 about theft, who gave intimation to OP No 2 on telephone. Complainant submitted claim before OP which was repudiated by letter dated 14.7.2010. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District

Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there was delay of 20 days in lodging FIR and delay in intimation to Insurance Co. which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of policy, so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 filed written statement and supported allegations of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No 2 & 3 to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and were further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of intimation to the police and OP on the same day of incidence, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal on the ground of delayed FIR and delayed intimation to the Insurance Co.; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and order of District Forum be affirmed. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 also supported petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards photocopy of intimation dated 9.8.2009 to SHO, Pandav Nagar, Delhi given by Amit Goyal in which it was mentioned that he parked his car in the night of 8.8.2009 in front of his house which was found missing in the morning. It was further mentioned that his vehicle may be searched, but no legal action may be taken. Later on, FIR under Section 379IPC was registered on 29.8.2009 with similar aforesaid facts in the form of statement of Amit Goyal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to earlier report dated 9.8.2009, FIR was registered on 29.8.2009, but in Column 12 of the FIR, I do not find any averment regarding earlier information dated 9.8.2009 and in such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on earlier alleged intimation dated 9.8.2009. If Amit Goyal intended to lodge report about theft of vehicle on 9.8.2009, why he mentioned that no legal action may be taken which raises doubt about authenticity of intimation dated 9.8.2009. Even in the complaint it has not been mentioned that any intimation was given to police on 9.8.2009 and simply it has been mentioned that immediately intimation was given to the police station and FIR was registered on 29.8.2009, which connotes that first time FIR was lodged on 29.8.2009 and there was delay of 20 days in lodging FIR.

As far intimation to insurance Co. is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards written intimation dated 9.8.2009 given by complainant to agent/OP No. 3 in which it was mentioned that he has already intimated about theft of car to the Insurance Company on phone. On this application agent also mentioned that he has intimated to Insurance Co. on phone. Admittedly, no written intimation was given by the complainant or OP No. 3 to OP No. 1 & 2 about theft of vehicle before lodging claim and no reliance can be placed on intimation

given by complainant to agent/OP No. 3. Even if it is presumed that intimation was given by complainant to OP NO. 3 regarding theft of vehicle, this intimation cannot be presumed to OP No. 1 & 2 on the basis that OP No. 3 was agent of OP No. 1 & 2 through whom policy was obtained. Written intimation to OP no. 1 & 2 was required to be given immediately after theft of vehicle. When written intimation was given by complainant to OP No. 3, why has he not given written intimation to OP No. 1 & 2 regarding theft of vehicle. As no explanation has been given for alleged violation of terms and conditions of policy, it can be observed that intimation to Insurance Co. was not given immediately and was given first time while submitting claim.

Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal on the basis of judgment of this Commission in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005, - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane in which claim was dismissed on account of 2 days delay in lodging FIR and 9 days delay in intimation to Insurance Company.

In I (2013) CPJ 713 (NC) - Suman Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd . and in I (2013) CPJ 741 (NC) - Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd ., I have decided that as per terms and conditions of the policy, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate about theft to the OP immediately. In aforesaid both the cases, I have upheld order of State Commission dismissing complaint.

In the light of aforesaid judgment, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.