ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MUKESH MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the learned DCF Banswara by which it allowed the complaint. Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his motorcycle from the appellant company which was effective from 13.5.2008 to 12.5.2009. In the night of 22.4.2009 this motorcycle was stolen, a report was lodged with the concerned Police Station on 23.4.2009. The complainant filed a theft claim with the appellant company which was repudiated on the ground that intimation of the incident was not given within 48 hours of the incident as stipulated in the policy conditions. The complainant filed a complaint before the learned DCF which was allowed. The learned DCF relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal's case reported in : IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC).

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant company has argued that the judgment relied by the DCF in Nitin Khandelwal's case is not applicable here. In that case user of the vehicle was changed. He has cited before us the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point that delay in informing the Insurance Company is fatal. He relied on Oriental Insurance Co. v/s. Parvesh Chander, (Appeal No. 6739/2010) (SC), Revision Petition No. 793/2014, Ramesh Chand Meghwanshi v/s. Oriental Insurance Co., II : (2015) CPJ 262 (NC), Revision Petition No. 4762/2012, Surendra v/s. National Insurance Co., Revision Petition No. 2463/2013, Sriram General Insurance Co. v/s. Gurshinder Singh, First Appeal No. 141/2009, New India Assurance Co. v/s. Ramavtar. On the basis of these judgments he has submitted that delay in informing the Insurance Company will render the claim not payable.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued before us that immediately after theft the complainant went to the branch office of the Insurance Company and he orally informed the officials there of the incident but he was directed to the Police Station for lodging the FIR. He was also asked to come after the police has completed the investigation. The learned Counsel argues that there has been no delay in informing the Insurance Company. He has also supported the judgment of the learned DCF in placing reliance on Nitin Khandelwal's case. We have heard the arguments of both sides. We are in agreement with the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant company that delay in informing the Insurance Company is fatal. In the present case the complainant has submitted an affidavit stating that he went to report the matter to the officials of the company at Banswara who directed him to the Police Station and thereafter he lodged a FIR with the Police Station. There has been no counter affidavit contradicting this fact on oath by any official of the company that the complainant had not informed of the incident verbally. Secondly, there has been a circular of the IRDA that theft claims should not be repudiated mechanically. If the delay is explainable then the claim should not be repudiated. In view of this circular and the affidavit of the complainant that he went to the Branch Office of the company to intimate the officials of the incident, we accept the explanation of the complainant and we are of the view that there has been no delay in informing the Insurance Company and delay if any has been satisfactorily explained.