Noida: The district consumer commission has directed United India Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 12 lakh to a Greater Noida resident for his stolen truck, along with 6% annual simple interest from the date of filing the complaint until payment. The commission also ordered the insurer to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation costs and directed it to comply within 30 days.The order was passed by commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma on Oct 15. The commission held that the insurer’s rejection of the claim solely on the grounds of delayed intimation was unjustified, as the theft had been reported to the police and the vehicle remained untraced.Tilpata village resident Sanjeev Kumar had purchased an Eicher truck on Nov 30, 2015. The vehicle was financed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. It was stolen from Greater Noida on March 22, 2016. Kumar approached the consumer commission on Nov 2, 2018, after the insurance company refused to settle his claim.Kumar told the commission that he had informed the bank and insurer about the theft and submitted the required documents but received no response. He said a police report was filed on March 27, 2016, and a final report was subsequently submitted to the court.The insurance company opposed the complaint, arguing that Kumar had informed it about the theft only on July 3, 2016, 73 days after the incident. It said the delay violated the insurance policy’s terms, which required immediate written intimation. The insurer also cited an investigator’s report and Kumar’s alleged failure to respond to a clarification letter sent in May 2017.Kotak Mahindra Bank also contested the complaint, saying it had sanctioned a vehicle loan of Rs 11.22 lakh, against which Kumar had paid only the first EMI. The bank said arbitration proceedings had resulted in an award of Rs 15.62 lakh, with 12% annual interest and litigation costs of Rs 5,000. It alleged that the consumer complaint was intended to delay execution of the award.The commission relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaina Construction Company v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2022), which held that delayed intimation to an insurer did not, by itself, justify rejecting a claim when the theft had been promptly reported to the police.“The record clearly shows that the plaintiff reported the vehicle theft to the police on March 22, 2016, on the same day of the incident. Subsequently, an FIR was filed on March 27,” the commission observed.It held that the delay in informing the insurer was not sufficient grounds to reject the claim, given the prompt police intimation, the subsequent FIR and the fact that the vehicle had not been recovered.
