Judgment:
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President:
1. On 26.12.2006 a Tata India car belonging to the complainant, which was insured for an amount of Rs.3,06,927/- with the OP Insurance Company w.e.f. 9.11.2006 to 8.11.2007, was stolen from the residence of the complainant at D-340, Nawada Housing Complex, Kakrolla More, Delhi. The complainant informed the police. A copy of the Daily Diary Annexure A-2 is available on the file. The Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi did not register the FIR. The complainant then filed an application u/s 156(3) CRPC and the Magistrate directed the police to register a case and the Police vide FIR No.404 of 2007 registered the case of theft.
2. After around 5 months of the theft the complainant informed the OP Insurance Co. by sending a letter about the theft, claiming the reimbursement of the insured sum. On 25.4.2007, the OP Insurance Co., by sending a letter, asked the complainant to explain reasons for the delay caused in informing the OP, and thereafter, on 25.11.2007, the OP Insurance Co. took the copy of the FIR and the keys of the vehicle from the complainant.3. On 11.2.2008, the OP repudiated the claim for two reasons (1) Negligence on the part of the complainant and (2) Delayed intimation of the incident to the OP.4. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum against the OP alleging the above facts assailing repudiation and calming the insured sum along with compensation and costs, which the OP opposed and filed the written version alleging that the doors of the house where the car remained open and the key of the car was lying on the table inviting theft in as much as proper precaution was not taken by the complainant and he was guilty of negligence, which is a violation of condition No.4 of the Insurance Agreement, and not informing about the incident of theft immediately to the OP and thereafter informing after 5 months of the occurrence, is violation of condition No.4 of the Insurance Agreement and the repudiation of the claim by the OP is, therefore, wholly justifiable.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim because of delay of almost five months in providing information of theft to the insurance company. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the OP insurance company.
6. That is what brings the appellant/complainant in appeal before this Commission.
7. We have heard Sh. Dhruv Kumra, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri V.K. Anand, Counsel for the respondent in this appeal.
8. It was argued by the Counsel for the Appellant/complainant that the complainant had orally informed the insurance company about the theft and it has also been mentioned in the complaint and in his affidavit and that the OP Insurance company had already informed the complainant that the claim could only be lodged accompanying by an FIR, and the FIR could be lodged after five months, on the directions to the police by the Magistrate.
9. The plea of oral information is un-acceptable. The Insurance Company should have been informed in writing about the theft. The term and condition in the Insurance Agreement reproduced below, stipulates that any such information must be conveyed immediately to the Insurance Company. The word used is immediately and the delay of five months for the reason that it ltook five months in lodging the FIR by the complainant cannot be considered as immediate. There has as such been violation of term and condition of the insurance agreement and the appellant/complainant is not entitled to any claim. Condition No.1 of the policy is as below:
œNotice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident 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 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 cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender?
10. The appellant/complainant could have sent the information to the OP immediately as he had the D.D. with him.
11. The result is that the appeal shall stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 12. A copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rule, and a copy of this order be sent to District Forum for information. The file be consigned to Record room.Announced on 08th day of January 2014.