Can't Repudiate Genuine Insurance Claims Based On Delayed Intimation, NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition Filed By United India Insurance Company

Brief Facts:

On 18th June 2010, the Complainant purchased a Tractor MF 1035, from Gehlot Motors, Gangapur City (“Seller”). It was insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd (“Insurance Company”), with a valid policy from 24th June 2010 to 23rd June 2011. On 27th June 2010, the Complainant went to Banas River by his Tractor to bring Sand for repair work. While passing near a plant, some unknown person forcefully took away the tractor from him. He intimated the Police Control Room on 28th June 2010 about the theft of the vehicle. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on 6th July 2010. He also intimated to the Insurance Company on 7th July 2010 about the theft of the vehicle and filed a claim for the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor. However, the Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the grounds of delay in intimation and also to the Police about the theft of the tractor.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan (“District Commission”). The District Commission dismissed the complaint based on late intimation and the Complainant's failure to prove that the tractor was used for agricultural purposes. Subsequently, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (“State Commission”).

The State Commission allowed the appeal on the grounds that the police filed the FIR 8 days later after the Complainant informed them. Further, a delay of 10 days in intimating the Insurance Company was immaterial in case of theft. Therefore, the Insurance Company was directed to disburse Rs. 3,60,000/- along with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

Observations by the NCDRC:

The NCDRC noted that the Complainant informed the police station on 28^th June, 2010 itself, which was a day after the theft occurred. Additionally, it was established that the Complainant formally informed the Insurance Company in writing on 7th July 2010. Relying on Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. [2020 (11) SCC], the NCDRC concluded that the delay in intimation to the Insurance Company was no longer a valid issue. Thus, the NCDRC held that the Insurance Company was unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the Complainant based on the ground of delayed intimation.

In light of these observations, the NCDRC upheld the order of the State Commission. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad

Case No.: Revision Petiton No. 2009 of 2016

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Hrash Kumar and Mr Anuj Kumar

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Sandeep Sharma