Summary
An insurer repudiated a stolen-truck claim solely because notice to it was delayed by about five months, although the owner promptly reported the theft to police. Applying Gurshinder Singh, the Court held that delay alone did not justify rejection where the theft claim was not disbelieved and the vehicle remained untraced. It reversed the NCDRC and affirmed the State Commission’s award on a seventy-five-per-cent basis with enhanced interest.
Issues
- Whether delayed notice to the insurer alone justified repudiation of a genuine vehicle-theft claim promptly reported to police.
Held
- Condition 1 distinguished accident-related notification from the obligation to promptly report theft or crime to police and cooperate. Applying the three-Judge ruling in Gurshinder Singh, mere delay in notifying the insurer could not defeat an otherwise genuine theft claim in the stated circumstances. (¶ 7-9)
- The owner reported the robbery the next day. Police arrested and charge-sheeted the accused, but the vehicle was untraced. The insurer did not reject the claim as nongenuine; its sole ground was delayed intimation. That ground did not sustain repudiation here. (¶¶ 4-5, 9)
- The NCDRC order was set aside and the State Commission order affirmed. The restored relief comprised Rs.12,79,399, representing seventy-five per cent of the insured declared value, interest at nine per cent from complaint to realisation, Rs.10,000 compensation and Rs.5,000 litigation expenses. The Court did not award the full insured value. (¶¶ 6, 10-11)
Result
Appeal allowed. NCDRC order set aside and State Commission award affirmed: Rs.12,79,399 with nine-per-cent interest from complaint to realisation, plus Rs.10,000 compensation and Rs.5,000 litigation expenses.