Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Premaji Babuji Oad on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14447 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14447 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
PREMAJI BABUJI OAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR BHARAT B SHAH(739) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the
judgment and order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition
No.1352 of 2022.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, Shri Hari Krishna
Maheshwari owner of Tata Truck bearing registration
No.UP.66.E.9989 had taken insurance from the petitioner
insurance company vide policy No.30020031116300005537
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012. The said vehicle came to be sold
by the insured to the respondent herein about 5 months prior to
the date of alleged theft of the vehicle. That on 20.12.2011, the
said vehicle was stolen. Accordingly, a claim came to be lodged
by the respondent who was the new owner/Power of Attorney
holder of the vehicle. That on 07.08.2013, the claim of the
respondent came to be repudiated by the petitioner insurance
company.
2.1 Aggrieved, the respondent owner filed a consumer
complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission ["District Commission" for short]. By order dated
15.06.2017, the District Commission was pleased to reject the
complaint of the respondent on the ground that the policy was
subject to specific terms and conditions and the respondent had
failed to promptly report the theft of the vehicle to the police and
there was a delay in reporting the theft to the insurance
company. Therefore, there was a breach of crucial policy terms
and conditions. It was held that delay in filing the FIR deprived
the petitioner from opportunity to effectively search for the stolen
vehicle.
2.2 Aggrieved, the respondent filed an Appeal No.378 of 2017
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
["State Commission" for short]. By order dated 04.07.2022, the
State Commission was pleased to allow the appeal and directed
the insurance company to pay Rs.10,20,180/- towards the claim
of the petitioner.
2.3 Aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed revision petition
No.1352 of 2022 before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission ["National Commission" for short]. The
National Commission vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2024
has upheld the order passed by the State Commission and the
revision petition came to be dismissed.
Aggrieved, the petitioner insurance company filed the
present Special Civil Application.
3. Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the findings arrived at by the District
Commission ought to have been upheld by the State
Commission as well as the National Commission. She submits
that the respondent was not the actual owner of the vehicle and
the policy was also taken in the name of the earlier owner and
that he was only a Power of Attorney holder. She submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
the respondent did not inform the insurance company
immediately as well as lodged the FIR with the police with delay
in respect of the theft of the vehicle. She submits that such a
delay is fatal and therefore, the petitioner insurance company
had all rights to repudiate the claim as it was in breach of the
conditions of the policy. Further, it was submitted that the
vehicle was sold to the respondent and the vehicle was in
possession of the Power of Attorney holder, however, the vehicle
was not transferred in the name of the Power of Attorney
holder/purchaser and the insurance policy was continued in the
name of the earlier owner itself. She submits that the earlier
owner did not have any interest in the vehicle after the sale. She
further submits that it was wrongly concluded by the State
Commission that the claim of the complainant was genuine and
that the District Commission had not adjudicated the said issue
as there was a breach of conditions of the policy. She further
submits that the National Commission has also erred in holding
that the delay in intimation to the insurance company as also
purported transfer of the vehicle to the third party by entering in
a sale agreement, is not an important factor for the insurer to
deny the claim.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
3.1 In support of her case, she has relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No.6518 of 2022 -
Kanwarjit Singh Kang v. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co.Ltd. & Anr. - dated 29.03.2022 wherein it has been held that
the necessity of giving immediate notice to the police cannot be
gainsaid and if that had not been done, the entire claim would
come under a thick cloud of suspicion and the onus is then
heavy on the insured to justify the delay. The delay in lodging
the FIR has to be explained by the insured. She, therefore,
submits that in the present case, since the FIR has been lodged
after a delay of 10 days and the petitioner has been intimated
about the same on 15.02.2012, the present Special Civil
Application be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of
the National Commission as well as State Commission be set
aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. Bharat B. Shah, learned advocate for the
respondent submits that the claim of the respondent is genuine.
He submits that immediately on the theft of the vehicle, the
police was informed, however, after some search when the
vehicle was not traceable, the police has registered the FIR. He
submits that there is no delay in informing the police, however,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
the FIR came to be lodged after search of the stolen vehicle
remained unfruitful. He submits that thereafter the petitioner
had obtained signature of the owner of the vehicle and then
lodged the claim with the petitioner insurance company. He
submits that in the facts of the present case, there is no delay in
informing the police or lodging the FIR. He submits that though
the sale of the vehicle had taken place, since necessary NOC
from the RTO office was unavailable, the said vehicle could not
be registered with the new owner. He submits that in the present
case, the claim which has been lodged by the respondent is a
genuine claim. The Truck in question has been stolen and is not
traceable and has not been recovered. He, therefore, submits
that the District Commission erred in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner. However, the State Commission as well as the
National Commission have rightly held that since the claim of
the petitioner is genuine, the same could not be repudiated by
the petitioner insurance company. He submits that the petitioner
insurance company is claiming breach of the conditions of the
policy when there are none. The delay has also been properly
explained in the present case. He, therefore, submits that it was
a duty of the petitioner insurance company to grant the claim of
the petitioner instead of repudiating the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
4.1 In support of his case, he relies on the decision of Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.2632 of 2020 - Surendra Kumar
Bhilawe v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. dated
18.06.2020 wherein it has been held that as per the definition of
"owner" in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
respondent would be the owner of the said Truck and the insurer
could not have avoided its liability for the loss suffered by the
owner on the ground of transfership of the vehicle. He, therefore,
submits that the orders passed by the State Commission as well
as the National Commission be upheld.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
6. In the present case, the petitioner insurance company has
repudiated the claim of the respondent on the grounds of (i)
violation of condition No.1 of the policy; (ii) misrepresentation of
facts; (iii) differences in signature; (iv) violation of condition 5 of
the policy; (v) question of insurable interest; and (vi) suppression
and misrepresentation of material facts.
7. The learned advocate for the petitioner has emphasized on
the facts that there was a delay in filing the FIR before the police
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
and also delay in informing the insurance company about the
theft of the vehicle. She submits that the said delay is fatal and
has deprived the insurance company as well as the police from
tracing the vehicle. She has submitted that in view thereof,
there is breach of conditions of the policy.
8. In the present case, the respondent owner had informed
the police immediately upon the theft of the vehicle and as
search for the vehicle was unfruitful, the FIR has been lodged on
30.12.2021 i.e. after 10 days.
9. The petitioner insurance company was informed about the
incident only on 15.12.2022, i.e. after delay of 55 days. In the
present case, the said delay has been properly explained. It has
come on record that the respondent had to go to the earlier
owner in Uttar Pradesh and thereafter obtain his signatures on
the relevant papers before lodging the claim with the petitioner
and the said steps were taken after the police had registered the
FIR.
10. Further, in the present case, it is not the case of the
insurance company that the claim of the petitioner is not
genuine and not covered by the policy of insurance. The main
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
emphasis of the rejection of the claim is on the ground of
purported transfer to the respondent herein by entering into a
sale agreement and further on the ground of delay. It has been
held by both the State Commission as well as the National
Commission that the claim of the petitioner is genuine. In such a
situation, if the respondent has denied the claim merely on the
ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance
company about the occurrence of the theft, then, it would be
hyper technical view resulting in rejection of the genuine claim.
It has been held that the Consumer Protection Act aims at
protecting the interest of the consumers and it being a beneficial
legislation deserves pragmatic construction. However, issue of
delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the
vehicle as well as lodging of the FIR has been well settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In the present case,
the findings rendered by the State Commission as well as
National Commission are in consonance with the law laid down
and no infirmity could be pointed out by the learned advocate for
the petitioner for interfering with the same.
11. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the
petitioner would not be applicable in the facts and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14447/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
circumstances of the present case as in the said case, the Court
had dismissed the claim of the insured therein on the ground of
unexplained delay, but in the present case, the facts as are
brought out on record in respect of delay and show a satisfactory
explanation for delay.
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present Special
Civil Application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Connected Civil Application for Direction also stands
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
