TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. TILAK GUPTA & ORS S/O BALDEV RAJ MAHAJAN; A B N AMRO BANK, THROUGH ITS MANAGER AUTO LOANS; YOGESH SARDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Revision Petition, by TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint is to the order dated 17.08.2008, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. FA-06/179. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 02.12.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (for short "the District Forum") in Case no. 596/2005 and has consequently, dismissed the Appeal. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint, filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, alleging deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating his claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him on account of the theft of the Insured vehicle viz., a Maruti car, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the Car, as compensation for the loss of said vehicle.

(2.) Since the factum of theft of the vehicle is not in dispute, we deem unnecessary to burden the order by narrating the facts in extenso. It would suffice to note that the short controversy falling for consideration is whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that on the date of the incident i.e. 07.05.2003, the Insurance policy had already been cancelled on account of dishonouring of the cheque, issued by the Complainant towards the premium, at the time of obtaining the policy.

(3.) Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that since the cancellation of the policy was duly communicated by the Insurance Company to the Complainant, vide letter dated 08.04.2003, in the absence of a valid policy on the date of incident, both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in issuing the aforesaid directions. Learned Counsel has also made a valiant attempt to justify repudiation on the ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Complainant in informing the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle, and hence, the condition in the policy, stipulating such intimation within a reasonable time stood breached. It is thus, asserted that the repudiation of the claim was fully justified.