The insurer can repudiate the claim even if there is a delay of one day to inform about the theft of vehicle

While passing the impugned order, the State Commission has relied on the judgement of the National Commission in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane in F.A. No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 in which the vehicle was stolen on 8.4.2000 and the matter was reported to the police on 10.4.2000, i.e., after two days of the incident and information to the Insurance Co. was given after about 9 days, i.e., on 17.4.2000 and even then the National Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay in reporting the theft of the vehicle. In the present case, we find that the FIR with the police is recorded on 30.12.2006 and the intimation to the Insurance Co. was given on 31.12.2006. In the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission which is in line with the later decision of this Commission in Trilochan Jane’s case (Supra) where the delay in reporting the theft was held to be crucial in the matter of violation of terms and conditions of the policy based on which the claim of the complainant was non-suited. So far as the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel are concerned, we find that the facts and circumstances of the case of Sanjay Shivhare were different and hence the decision of the three Member Bench in that case would not get attracted to the present case. So far as the ratio of the second case of Parvesh Chander Chadha is concerned, this case was decided on  28.8.2008 by a Two Member bench of this Commission wherein in spite of the delay, the order of the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission,  directing the claim to be settled on non-standard basis as 75% was upheld. However, in the case of Trilochan Jane (Supra), this Commission has taken a different view in similar circumstances relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of United India  Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand RaiChandan Lal [JT (2004) 8 SC 8]. In this later judgement in the case of Trilochan Jane, this Commission in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court has held that the terms of policy have to be considered as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the  same. It was held that the policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported “Immediately”. In the context of a theft of the car,  word  “Immediately” has to be construed strictly to make the Insurance Co. liable to pay the compensation. We are of the considered view that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the State Commission rightly applied the ratio of later judgement in the case of Trilochan Jane while non-suiting the claim of the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any ground which would justify our interference with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

......National Commission - 

rp/2982/2012

Shri Kuldeep Singh

IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.