Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that a mere delay in notifying an insurance company about a theft is insufficient to justify the denial of the insured’s claim. The court, presided over by Justice NV Ramana, agreed with the Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance judgment that it would be unjust and irrational to dismiss authentic assertions that investigators had already examined and confirmed as accurate.
The court noted that an insured promptly filing a First Information Report (FIR) following a vehicle theft, the police issue a final report, and the insurance company-appointed surveyors confirm the authenticity of the theft, a mere delay in notifying the insurance company cannot serve as a reason to deny the insured’s claim.
About the case
As per the ruling of the Supreme Court, a mere failure to promptly notify the insurance company regarding the theft is insufficient to justify the denial of the insured’s claim. The three-judge bench, presided over by Justice NV Ramana, was responding to a reference that raised the question of whether the claimant would be disqualified from filing an insurance claim if the vehicle theft was not reported to the insurance company immediately, despite the fact that the FIR was registered immediately.
The bench, which also included Justices R. Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, concurred with the judgment in Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance that it would be taking an overly technical stance to deny a claim solely on the basis that the claimant failed to notify the insurance company of the theft in a timely manner. The prevailing opinion was that it would be unjust and irrational to dismiss authentic assertions that the investigator had already examined and confirmed as accurate. In response to the citation, the bench noted:
In situations where an insured promptly files a First Information Report (FIR) following the theft of a vehicle, the police issue a final report after conducting an investigation and the vehicle remains untraceable, and the insurance company-appointee surveyors or investigators confirm the authenticity of the theft, a mere delay in notifying the insurance company about the theft cannot serve as a reason to deny the insured’s claim.
The court noted that in the event of a vehicle theft, an individual who has misplaced his vehicle would promptly file a First Information Report (FIR). Furthermore, the court anticipated that such an individual would immediately cooperate with law enforcement in their pursuit of the vehicle. The vehicle’s untraceable final report from the police and the filing of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle would provide evidence in support of the claimant’s theft claim. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the surveyors contracted by the insurance company to verify the authenticity of the claimant’s assertion concerning the theft. Upon investigation, if the surveyor designated by the insurance company confirms the veracity of the theft claim, this, in conjunction with the prompt filing of the FIR, would constitute irrefutable evidence that the vehicle was stolen, in our opinion.
