11 June 2024 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights   |   FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Theft >> Criminal Law  

A truck owner has successfully won his insurance claim for a stolen vehicle in a recent revision petition decided by the National Consumer Commission. The insurance company had denied the claim due to late intimation of the incident.

In April 2004, the truck owner's vehicle went missing along with the driver. The owner filed an FIR under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to criminal breach of trust. He later approached his insurance company to claim the insured amount for the stolen truck. However, the company rejected the claim citing a delay in informing them about the incident.

The truck owner challenged the insurance company's decision in the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum ruled in favor of the owner, directing the insurance company to pay the claim amount along with interest and penalty. The insurance company appealed this decision to the State Consumer Commission, which upheld the District Forum's order.

Dissatisfied with the State Commission's verdict, the insurance company filed a revision petition with the National Consumer Commission. They argued that the claim repudiation was justified due to the following reasons:

• The truck owner did not inform them about the incident promptly.
• The FIR was filed under section 406 IPC (breach of trust) and not section 378 IPC (theft).
• The claim application was filed beyond the limitation period.

The National Consumer Commission dismissed the revision petition and sided with the truck owner. Their reasoning for the decision was based on the following points:

• Both lower courts had concurrently concluded that the incident was indeed a theft.
• The National Commission's role in revision petitions is limited, and they cannot overturn factual findings made by lower courts.
• Even if the driver was involved in the disappearance, it can still be considered theft.
• Delay in intimation alone is not a sufficient reason to reject a claim, especially if a valid explanation exists.
• The claim application was filed within the permissible time limit.