Summary
The Supreme Court held that delayed intimation to an insurer did not defeat a genuine vehicle-theft claim where the police were promptly informed, filed an untraced final report and the insurer’s investigators confirmed the theft. Adopting Om Prakash, it distinguished the policy’s accident-notification requirements from the theft clause and rejected a technical denial based solely on delay. It restored the ₹4,70,000 award with specified interest and payment directions.
Issues
- Whether delayed insurer intimation alone defeated an otherwise verified theft claim after immediate police reporting.
Held
- The policy’s accident-related notice provisions served prompt damage assessment, while its theft clause required immediate police notice and cooperation to secure the offender’s conviction. Prompt police investigation principally serves recovery of a stolen vehicle. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The cooperation obligation must be assessed in context, including prejudice to the insurer. Mere delayed insurer intimation, following prompt police notice, ordinarily does not amount to breach sufficient to defeat an established genuine theft claim. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Where immediate FIR registration, an untraced police final report and the insurer’s own investigation establish genuine theft, delay alone cannot justify repudiation. Om Prakash’s approach was approved and the reference answered on that basis. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Those conditions were satisfied here, including same-day FIR and a favourable insurer investigation. The National Commission erred in reversing the concurrent consumer-forum award. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; National Commission judgment set aside and District Forum award, affirmed by the State Commission, restored. Appellant may withdraw the deposited 75% with accrued interest; insurer to pay the remainder within six weeks with 12% annual interest on the entire ₹4,70,000 from the District Forum order until realisation.