OM PRAKASH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1488/2008. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent Insurance Company against order dated 2.6.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind in complaint No. 3/2007 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to settle the insurance claim of the complainant in respect of the theft of an insured truck which was stated to have been stolen in Delhi on 5.5.2004 during the currency of the insurance. One of the pleas raised by the Insurance Company in the appeal was that there was patent and gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy at the end of the insured because no intimation about the alleged theft of the truck, in question, was passed on to the Insurance Company up till 28.10.2004 although the truck was claimed to have been stolen on5.5.2004 and apolice report was lodged at Police Station Badli, North West District, Delhi on 8.5.2004, The State Commission going by condition (i) of the terms and conditions of the policy and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and this Commission in a number of decisions held that there was a clear cut violation of the condition (i) of the terms and conditions of the policy which disentitled the insured of his claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him due to the alleged theft of the truck, in question.

(2.) Ms. Saroj Gupta, Counsel representing the petitioner would assail the impugned order primary on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and Circumstances of the case and the material brought on record. She additionally pleaded that an oral intimation about the theft of the vehicle, in question, was passed on to the concerned officer of the respondent Insurance Company soon after the incident and the said officer kept on assuring the complainant that his claim would be settled in due course. She also submits that a written intimation was, however, given to the Insurance Company after final report was filed by the Police before the concerned Magistrate. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because as rightly held by the State Commission, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity. This Commission has been of the consistent view that even delay of few days in not intimating the Insurance Company about the incident of theft is fatal and the insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regard to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Policy.In our view, the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference by this Commission. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.