- (1.) The petition is against the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) directing the insurance company to pay the amount being the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle which is said to have been stolen on the intervening night of 16/17th February, 2012. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that there had been a breach of terms of the policy in informing the petitioner-insurance company, not before a delay of 91 days when the condition in the terms of the policy was that the fact of theft must be informed within 48 hours. This, the insurance company made out to have caused a serious prejudice in not being able to investigate on the complaint of theft and the petitioner could not have slept over the fact of theft from being reported for such a long period. Even an untraced report had not been made available by the insured to vouch for the fact that the vehicle could not be traced or there was no likelihood of the vehicle being traced.
(2.) The PLA had discarded this defence only by considering the fact that the theft was reported immediately with the Police Station Sushant Lok at Gurgaon on 17.2.2012 itself, which was registered as FIR No. 27 and the petitioner would also give an explanation that he had immediately, without delay, informed about the fact of theft through one Mahender Dabar, an employee of the insurance company. The vehicle had been purchased by a tie up with the financier and the financier had also been informed about the fact of theft. The court found that even the case of delay, as sought to be made out by the insurer, cannot be believed, for a copy of the claim which was marked 'C' by the PLA showed that there had been some over writing on the date mentioned on the copy of the complaint to the insurer. What was seen to be 18.5.2012 was actually either 18.3.2012 or 18.2.2013 (18.2.2012 ). The PLA, therefore, found that there was no delay in the complaint and the insurance company could not have repudiated the complaint.
(3.) A term in the policy that the fact of loss must be notified within 48 hours is a manner of providing to the insurer a credible plea that an insured was not faking up the claim and approaching the insurer with all alacrity. If there was a delay in informing the insurer it was surely relevant for assessing the truth of the claim but it cannot be such as to provide cause for the insurance to repudiate in the same manner that the claim beyond the limitation could be said to be barred. It ought not be construed that the claim made after 48 hours, even if explanation is given, will be rendered as barred by law. The statutory bar for lodging a complaint for recovery of the amount of a policy of insurance is at all times three years as per Article 44 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of which will commence from the occurrence of loss or where the claim of the policy is denied. It could be specifically altered for a particular claim before a forum through statutory provision, such as the Consumer Protection Act which sets out a shorter period of two years for lodging a complaint under the Act. The Legal Services Authorities Act itself does not prescribe any particular fetter for a claim to lodge a claim which was made against the insurer beyond 48 hours.;