UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Sachin Bhimrao Kamble

THE complainant/respondent purchased an Indica Car bearing registration no. MH -20 -BT -5522 and got the same insured with the petitioner Company for the period from 25.10.2011 to 24.10.2012. Alleging that the car was kept in locked condition in front of his house when it got stolen in the night intervening 10/11.03.2012, the complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. The claim, however, was repudiated by the petitioner Company on the ground that the insured had not given immediate intimation of the theft of the vehicle to the police and to the Insurance Company. Being dissatisfied from the stand taken by the Insurance Company, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same grounds on which the claim had been repudiated. Vide its order dated 21.04.2014, the District Forum rejected the complaint.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 25.11.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in addition to the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the Insurance Company is before us by way of this revision petition. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has produced the original insurance policy issued to the complainant. The aforesaid policy, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: - CONDITIONS: - 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 shall give immediate notice to the police and co -operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.

The due observance and fulfilment of the terms conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this policy."

THERE are certain DO''S and DONT''S for the insured printed on the last page of the insurance policy and one of the said DO''S and DONT''S read as under: - "Theft losses: Immediate intimation to the police as well as our police issuing office is compulsory. Please note that the delay in lodging FIR and intimating the claim to our office may adversely impact the admissibility of the claim. Please note that filing of the FIR is not only a policy condition, but also a requirement under law. Finally, you should not engage any unauthorised persons for your insurance purpose, so also at the time of claim. It is always safe for you either to contact the office or any of our authorized representatives of the company viz. Agents, Development Officers, and our Intermediaries."

IT is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that there is no condition in the policy requiring the insured to give immediate intimation of theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company. He further submits that the DO''S and DONT''S printed on the last page of the insurance policy do not constitute a part of the policy contract and are in the nature of an advice, breach of which cannot entail repudiation of the claim by the insured.

AS regards the alleged failure of the complainant to give immediate intimation of the theft to the police, the learned counsel submits that on 11.03.2012 itself the complainant had gone to the concerned police station to lodge an FIR, but the police officials did not register FIR and asked him to search the vehicle of his own. Even thereafter the complainant allegedly kept on visiting the police station till the FIR was eventually registered on 16.03.2012.

ADMITTEDLY , the complainant did not send any complaint to the concerned police station or the concerned Superintendent of Police by post, on 11.03.2012. If the concerned SHO had refused to register an FIR on 11.03.2012, the complainant ought to have sent a written complaint by registered post/speed post/through courier to the concerned SHO or his superior officer, requesting him to register an FIR. Had that been done, it would have been possible for us to accept the case of the complainant that he cannot be held responsible for the failure of the police to register an FIR, despite intimation having been given to them. However, in the absence of a documentary proof, it would be difficult for us to accept the case of the complainant that he had in fact visited the police station on a number of days prior to 16.03.2012, but it were the police officials who declined to register the FIR and insisted on his continuing to search the vehicle. The inevitable conclusion in this circumstance would be that the intimation of the alleged theft of the vehicle was given to the concerned police station five days after the said theft was detected by the complainant. By not giving immediate intimation of the theft of the vehicle to the concerned police station, the complainant contravened condition no. 1 of the insurance policy and in view of the condition no. 8 thereof, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment to him under the policy.

THE immediate intimation of the theft to the police station is not a mere formality, the purpose being to set the machinery of law into motion by bringing the theft to the notice of the concerned police station, so that timely effort can be made to trace the vehicle and arrest the culprits. The purpose is more or less defeated when there is delay in lodging the report with the police since it would be very difficult to trace the vehicle, if intimation to the concerned police station is given after a gap of 4/5 days. It would also be pertinent to note here that there is no other explanation from the complainant for delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the concerned police station. In the absence of a valid explanation, failure to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the concerned police station would enable the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim under the terms of the insurance policy issued by it.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.