Case: Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insuarance

2. The appellant got his truck, bearing Registration, insured with Respondent No.1 herein, i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., w.e.f. 10.03.2010 to 09.03.2011. The said vehicle was stolen from Chopanki, Bhiwari, Rajasthan on 23.03.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. Consequently, an FIR was lodged, on 24.03.2010, in Police Station Tapkura, District Alwar, Rajasthan, under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of the first respondent but the office was found to be closed. Then the appellant went to the place of theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police official. On 29.03.2010, the appellant along with the truck driver, went with the police officials for their assistance to search the vehicle. The appellant reached his village on 30.03.2010. On 31.10.2010, the appellant lodged the insurance claim with the3. Pursuant to the said claim, an Investigator was appointed by the, who, after verification, confirmed the factum of theft. Consequently, the Corporate Claims Manager approved an amount of Rs. 7,85,000/for the said claim of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant made several requests and demands to the, inter alia, seeking speedy processing and disposal of his insurance claim. Finally, the appellant served a legal notice, dated 09.08.2011, to they repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant citing breach of Condition No. 1, i.e. immediate information about the loss/theft of the vehicle4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed complaint before the, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar (for short `District Forum), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter alia, seeking a direction to they for payment of claim amount with an interest @ 18% per annum, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/to the appellant. Written statement was filed by the respondents herein opposing the claim of the appellant. The District Forum, by order dated 13.06.2013, dismissed the complaint of the appellant thereby holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents5. The appellant herein filed an appeal challenging the said order of District Forum, before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short `State Commission) at Panchkula. The State Commission by an order dated 23.10.2013 dismissed the said appeal. This order was challenged by the appellant by way of Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short `National Commission). This Revision Petition has been dismissed by the National Commission by an order dated 12.02.2014. The appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence ofs in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act12. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident. The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs. 7,85,000/towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/