By Nikita Datla, Intern, Lex Maven-
Sometimes, the Insurance Companies tries to waive off their liability, merely on the ground that the insured has delayed in intimating Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft. This case has dealt with such similar situation.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a vehicle and got insured with the Insurance Company. The said vehicle was robbed and the FIR was lodged next day. The said vehicle could not be traced and therefore, the police filed untraceable report after nine months. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the claim with the insurance company with regard to the theft of the said vehicle. The Insurance Company, however, neglected to settle the claim within a reasonable time, and therefore, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon and later on, the Insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had intimated about the loss after the lapse of more than five months and stated that there was a breach of condition no. 1 of the policy which mandated immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss/damage.
Condition No. 1– “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage 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 a major loss, 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 District Forum allowed the said claim of the complainant. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Haryana), Panchkula. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the aggrieved Insurance Company preferred the Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (New Delhi) which came to be allowed, in which NCDRC has set aside the order passed by the SCDRC and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Therefore, the present appeal is directed against the order passed by the NCDRC. The issue before the Court is “Whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim in toto, made by the owner of the vehicle, which was duly insured with the insurance company, in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft, merely on the ground that there was a delay in informing the company regarding the theft of vehicle?”
The court referred the case of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another [2020 (11) SCC 612], in which the same issue came before the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. In this case, the Apex court held that “when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.”
Following the ratio of this judgement, the court opined that NCDRC should not have set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission.
