Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member

The present appeal has been filed with a delay. The delay is condoned as per the reasons stated in I.A. Briefly stated relevant facts as detailed in the complaint are that the appellant/the complainant/ Jitender (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') is the registered owner of a heavy commercial vehicle, AMW Motor Limited (Tipper) bearing registration number HR-38-S-4644, chassis number MBYB97700CNA28613 and engine number 21M84090065(hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle'). The vehicle was purchased through invoice number H2013-0117 dated 21.02.2013. The vehicle was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited/the respondent no 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent no 1') under policy number 91272913 issued on 20.02.2015 and valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016 for an insured value of Rs.20,00,000/- upon payment of a premium amounting to Rs.21,007/-. The appellant had employed Asgar, son of Khali, resident of Village Dhauj, Faridabad as a permanent driver of the said vehicle who was in possession of a valid driving license effective up to 20.08.2016. The vehicle on 24.10.2015 being driven by the driver Asgar reached Village Dhauj Bajri at around 7:00 am and was parked outside the village. The driver proceeded to the house of Sanjay who was a friend of the appellant to collect money. The driver came back and found that the vehicle was missing. The driver reported the theft to appellant and thereafter the appellant reported the theft to the Police Control Room and the police advised the appellant to search the vehicle the surrounding area. The vehicle could not be traced and consequently FIR bearing number 156 dated 5.11.2015 was registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code / 1872 at Police Station City Mujesar, Faridabad. The appellant immediately informed the insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle on 7.11.2015. The police after conclusion of investigation submitted an Untraced Report dated 22.06.2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Faridabad which was accepted vide order dated 26.07.2016. The appellant also informed the Regional Transport Office, Faridabad about the theft on 7.12.2015.

                   1.1 The appellant duly submitted insurance claim to the respondent no.1 along with requisite documents. The insurance company conducted an investigation by appointing an investigator as informed to the appellant vide letter dated 16.11.2015 and vide letter dated 22.10.2016 asked the appellant to submit further documents which were accordingly submitted by the appellant. The respondent no 1 rejected the claim through vide pre-dated letter dated 24.01.2016 on ground of delay of 14 days in reporting the theft and violation of condition no.1 of the policy on grounds of contradictory statements, manipulation, and concealment of material facts was also alleged. The rejection of the claim by the respondent no 1 was deficiency in service. The appellant being aggrieved filed the consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') titled as Jitender V M/S. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited bearing no 367/17 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'). The appellant prayed that the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- being the insured value of the vehicle along with interest at 18% per annum besides claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 44,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The respondents filed written statement before the State Commission. The respondents in preliminary objections stated that the complaint is not maintainable in present form and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes as such the appellant is not entitled to seek under the Act. The appellant complainant lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present complaint as the insurance contract pertains to a commercial vehicle deployed for profit-oriented activities.

                   2.1 The respondents on reply on merits denied pleas taken by the appellant in the complaint. The respondents received the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle on 07.11.2015 whereas the vehicle was stolen on 24.10.2015. The respondents after receipt of information appointed M/s Eminent Solv Serve Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Private Limited as the surveyor to conduct investigation. The surveyor conducted detailed investigation and submitted its report dated 01.06.2016. It was revealed during investigation that the appellant in FIR has reported that he along with driver Asgar had gone to house of Sanjay to collect money at the time of the incident where they had food. The appellant and driver when came back to the parking spot found that the vehicle was missing. However during investigation the appellant gave in writing that he had sent Asgar alone to collect money from Sanjay's house and when Asgar returned came back at parking spot the vehicle was found to be missing who informed the appellant and thereafter the appellant informed the respondents about the theft. There was as such a clear contradiction in the statements made by the appellant regarding the circumstances pertaining to the theft. The appellant lodged FIR on 05.11.2015 while the theft was happened on 24.10.2015 as such FIR was lodged after a delay of 12 days. The respondents were informed about theft on 07.11.2015 after delay of 14 days which was in violation of condition no. 1 of the insurance policy. The respondents rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant vide pre-dated letter dated 24.01.2016. It was confirmed by the RTA during the investigation that the vehicle was also covered under another insurance policy issued by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 22.02.2015 to February 2016. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and that the claim of the appellant had been justly repudiated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The appellant in evidence has tendered affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A wherein reiterated averments taken in the complaint. The appellant relied on the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14. The respondents tendered affidavit of Pankaj Dhingra, Legal Head as Ex.OPW-1/A and relied on documents Ex. OP1 to Ex.OP3

4. The State Commission vide order dated 20.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') observed that the vehicle was stolen by an unknown person on 24.10.2015 but the appellant lodged FIR bearing no 156 dated 05.11.2015 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 at Police Station City Mujesar, Faridabad after an unexplained delay of 12 days. The respondents were intimated about the theft only on 07.11.2015 i.e. after a delay of 14 days without any cogent or satisfactory explanation. The appellant has admitted these delays. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision rendered by this in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Dharam Singh & another, III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC) and the State Commission opined that the principles laid down in said decision squarely apply in the present case particularly with respect to delayed intimation and breach of policy conditions. The State Commission also relied on the contradictions and inconsistency between the initial version and the subsequent written statement which undermined the credibility of the appellant and was amounting to a breach of condition no. 1 of the policy. The State Commission held that respondents were justified in repudiating the claim of the respondents vide pre-dated letter dated 24.01.2016. The complaint was found to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

5. The appellant being aggrieved filed present First Appeal bearing no FA 106 of 2025 titled as Jitender V. M/S. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & another under section 19 of the Act to challenge the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The appellant challenged the impugned order primarily on grounds that the impugned order was wrong, erroneous, contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside. The Supreme Court and this Commission consistently held that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to repudiate the claim of the insured particularly when the police authorities after due investigation have submitted an un-traced report confirming the incident of theft and relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh V Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020. The repudiation of the claim on technical ground was unwarranted, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of insurance claims. The State Commission did not consider the PCR report obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act which established that the police was informed about the theft on the same day i.e. 24.10.2015 at 9:45 am which demonstrated that the appellant acted promptly in reporting the theft to the authorities. The repudiation of the insurance claim on the grounds of delayed intimation was unjustified. The appellant also challenged the impugned order on various other grounds. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the consumer complaint filed by the appellant be allowed.

6. We have heard Sh. Siddharth Mittal, Advocate assisted by Sh. Abhijeet Varshney and Sh. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the appellant and Sh. Yoshit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. We have also perused and considered the relevant records including the impugned order passed by the State Commission. We have also considered the written submissions submitted on behalf of the appellant and respondents.

7. The counsel for the appellant besides referring the factual background of the case argued that the State Commission committed an error in dismissing the consumer complaint as the Supreme Court has held that a delay in intimation to the insurance company cannot serve as a valid ground for repudiation of a claim especially when the theft was reported to the police immediately. The PCR report obtained through RTI clearly established that the theft was reported on 24.10.2015 at 9.45 am on the same day but the police had initially advised the appellant to search the vehicle in vicinity, and only after multiple visits of the appellant in the police station FIR was registered under section 379 on 5.11.2015 which was subsequently intimated to the insurance company. The counsel for the appellant further argued that the minor discrepancies in the statement of the appellant and FIR are inconsequential and do not alter the fundamental fact of theft and further such hyper-technical grounds should not be allowed to form a basis for repudiation as repudiation on such grounds is arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles. It was also argued that un-traced report was filed after detailed investigation which was accepted by the trial court and this fact conclusively established the genuineness of the theft and confirming that the vehicle remained un-recovered. The counsel for the appellant ultimately argued that dismissal of the complaint on technical grounds is unwarranted and unjustified. The counsel for the appellant relied on Gurshinder Singh V Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal no. 653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 by the Supreme Court and Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited V Ajit Singh & another, First Appeal no. 915 of 2019 decided on 29.08.2024 by this Commission.

8. The counsel for the respondents besides referring factual background of the case argued that the appellant seeks to rely upon an RTI response indicating that a call was made from an unknown number reporting the theft of the insured vehicle but said RTI response neither disclosed the identity of the caller nor specified the approximate time during which the insured vehicle allegedly went missing. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the lodging of an FIR can be considered as a substitute for timely intimation to the insurance company but this requirement cannot be diluted by making a mere telephonic call to the PCR. The lodging of FIR initiates a formal investigation into a cognizable offence and therefore, in the absence of such registration, the requirement of prompt intimation to the insurer remains operative. It was further argued that the terms and conditions of the motor insurance policy expressly mandate immediate intimation of any loss or theft to enable the insurer to take timely steps for verification and investigation and these conditions are statutorily approved by the IRDAI and the erstwhile Tariff Advisory Committee. However in the present case, the delay in lodging FIR and further delay in intimation to the respondents by two additional days after the FIR was filed constituted a clear violation of policy conditions and even which is contrary to the law laid down in Gurshinder Singh V Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. The counsel for the respondents highlighted that very purpose of immediate intimation is to enable the insurer to appoint an investigator, coordinate with the police authorities and attempt to trace the vehicle while vital evidence is still available. The delay in the present case has justified the repudiation of the claim. The counsel for the respondents in support of arguments placed reliance on the decision of this Commission delivered in Rahul Ranka V Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Revision Petition No. 3895 of 2017.

                   8.1 The counsel for the respondents vehemently stated that the contracts of insurance are founded upon the doctrine of utmost good faith which mandates complete honesty and disclosure by the insured. The Appellant has failed to uphold this principle by furnishing inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the circumstances of the alleged theft which raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the claim. The inconsistency between the version of the appellant in FIR and during the investigation constituted a valid and sufficient ground for upholding the repudiation of the insurance claim. The counsel for the respondents relied on Goel Jewellers V National Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 606, New India Assurance Company Limited V Dharam Singh & anothe, III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC) and Rahul Ranka V Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Revision petition no. 3895 of 2017.

9. We shall now refer the admitted facts as reflecting from record. The appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle which was insured with the respondents under policy number 91272913 issued on 20.02.2015 with coverage valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016 for an insured amount of Rs. 20,00,000 and premium of Rs. 21,007/- was paid. The appellant had employed Asgar as the permanent driver of the vehicle who was having valid driving license valid till 20.08.2016. The vehicle on 24.10.2015 was being driven by Asgar and reached Village Dhauj Bajri at about 7:00 am. The vehicle was parked outside the village and the driver Asgar driver went to collect money from Sanjay who was a friend of the appellant. The driver found that the vehicle was missing when he came back to parking place. The theft was reported to the Police Control Room but the vehicle despite efforts to locate the vehicle remained untraced and FIR bearing no 156 dated 5.11.2015 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 was registered at Police Station City Mujesar, Faridabad. The appellant notified the respondent no 1 about the theft on 7.11.2015. The police after investigation submitted an Untraced Report on 22.06.2016 which was accepted by the concerned court. The appellant also informed the Regional Transport Office, Faridabad about the theft of vehicle on 7.12.2015. The respondents vide pre-dated letter dated 24.01.2016 has repudiated claim of the appellant on the ground of delay and contradictory statement & manipulation of actual facts. The repudiation pre-dated letter dated 24.01.2016 reads as under:-

                   By Regd.Post

                   24/01/2016

                   Mr.Jitender

                   S/o Bhagi Ram

                   VPO - Pali Distt-Faridabad Haryana

                   Sub.: Claim for Theft of Vehicle No. HR3854644 on 24/10/2015 Claim No, 36419285 under Policy No.91272913

                   Dear Sir,

                   With reference to your above mentioned claim we had deputed M/s ESSPL to investigate into the loss. The report of the investigator has since been received.

                   Based on the investigation report & documents on record, it has been observed that the vehicle was stolen on 24/10/2015 for which intimation given to ITGI on 07/11/15 after a delay of about 14 Days.

                   Hence, there is a Violation of Condition. 1 of policy which reads as under "Notice shall be given in writing to the Company Immediately upon the occurrence of any kind of loss or damage and in the event of any claim and there after the insured shall give all such information and Assistance as the Compa the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender"

                   Based on the investigation Report & documents on record, it has observed as under:-

                   it was observed that you had given Contradictory Statement & manipulates and concealed the actual facts. As per the FIR you stated that you were with Driver (Asgar) to collect the money from your friend's (Sanjay) house at the time of incident of theft and you and Driver took food at Sanjay's house and after taking food when you came back to the spot of parking the truck found that it was missing from where it was parked at last time. And then you informed & called at 100 number PCR.

                   But in written statement you had changed the statement mentioning that "you sent Asgar (drivor) to collect money from your friend's (Sanjay) house and driver wont there and when he came back from Sanjay's house he found that the vehicle was missing from whore it was parked at loat time then driver Informed you about the Incident of theft and then you advised to him to call at 100 no, after 15-20 mts you also reached there."

                   "We the above named, do hereby, to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, warrant the truth of the foregoing statements in every respect and agree that if We have made any false or fraudulent statement or there be any suppression or concealment of facts, the claim shall be forfeited"

                   In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the captioned claim is not tenable under the policy and we are filing the papers as "No-Claim".

                   Thanking you, Yours Faithfully

10. The issue which needs consideration under these circumstances is that whether the respondent was justified in repudiation of claim on the ground of delay. The delay was only of 12 days in lodging FIR and delay of 14 days in intimating the respondents about theft. The theft however was immediately reported to police. This Commission in National Insurance Company V Kulwant Singh, IV (2014) CPJ 62 held that insurance company should not have repudiated claim merely on account of delay in bringing the theft to the knowledge of insurer. There is no legal force in the contention of the respondents that the claim of the appellant was repudiated as there was delay of 14 days in reporting incident to the respondents by the appellant. The counsel for the appellant rightly placed reliance on Gurshinder Singh V Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and rightly argued that the claim of the appellant cannot repudiate on ground of delay. The respondents were not justified in repudiating claim of the appellant on the ground of delay of 14 days in reporting incident to the respondents. The respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach which was not justified and the respondents should have not considered delay of mere 14 days in repudiating claim of the appellant. The insurer should not repudiate claim of the insured merely on ground of short delay unless and until there are direct evidences raising doubt or suspicion about the genuineness of claim of the insured or there is inordinate unexplained delay in reporting incident to the insurer by the insured.

                   10.1. Undisputedly, the respondents themselves admitted that Surveyor namely M/s. Eminet Solv Serve Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. appointed by the respondents vide its letter dated 16.11.2015 to conduct the investigation in the matter who after investigation submitted its detailed report on 01.06.2016. On the same breath, the respondents submitted that the insurance claim of the appellant / complainant was rejected vide repudiation letter dated 24.01.2016, which is clearly established on record that the respondents had rejected the claim before submitting detailed investigation report by its own surveyor which is totally unwarranted. It is nowhere stated by the respondents neither in its written statement nor stated in the affidavit on oath by way of evidence that they had ever considered the conclusion of the said investigation report of its own surveyor dated 01.06.2016 before repudiating the claim. It is also unbelievable as to how the respondents repudiated the rightful insurance claim of the appellant before taking into consideration detailed investigation report of its own surveyor and if they would have to reject the insurance claim of the appellant on its own as to why they appointed the said surveyor for conducting the investigation and to submit its report. This is also a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents itself . The Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh V Shriram General Insurance Company Limited clarified that the delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of vehicle in question is no more a critical issue.

                   18. We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra), that in such a situation if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view. We find, that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held 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.

                   19. We find, that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that the Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting the interest of the consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. We find, that in Om Prakash (supra) this Court has rightly held that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine.

                   10.2 It would be appropriate to refer recent judgment passed by this Commission regarding repudiation of claim on ground of delay in reporting the incident to insurer. This Commission in M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Sunil Kumar, Revision Petition no 2461 of 2017 decided on 27.08.2025 considered the issue that the insured gave information regarding theft of vehicle after two and half months and the claim was resisted on the ground of delay by the insurer. The District Forum and the State Commission did not accept the delay in reporting incident to the insurer as a valid ground to repudiate claim of insured. This Commission while expressing its agreement with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission observed as under:-

                   14.2 The District Commission with regard to delay in informing the petitioner about theft also observed that the intimation of the theft of vehicle was immediately given to the concerned police and FIR was also lodged in the concerned police station and further there was no inappropriate delay in informing the petitioner about theft of vehicle. The State Commission also observed that the information regarding theft of vehicle was immediately given to the police and if the insurance company i.e. the petitioner was not informed immediately then it was without any affect. The State Commission further observed that the fact of theft was not disputed and the claim of the respondent cannot be rejected on ground of delay. We are of the considered opinion that argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner to justify repudiation of claim on ground of delay in informing the petitioner about theft of vehicle was without any merit.

11. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on conjectures and surmises and without proper application of law. The impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed and the consumer complaint filed by the appellant before State Commission is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay insurance claim of Rs.20,00,000/- to the appellant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 24.01.2016 till its realization. The respondents are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant towards litigation cost. The respondents are directed to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which total amount payable at the end of one month shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the expiry of one month till the date of actual payment on the awarded amount. FA/106/2025 Stands disposed of.

The pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.