SC: Mere delay in intimating insurer of theft no ground to repudiate claim if FIR lodged promptly and theft found genuine

Case Name: Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 24, 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24370 of 2015

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai.

Held: The Supreme Court resolved the conflict between Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and Parvesh Chander Chadha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that when the insured promptly lodges an FIR and the police file a final report of “not traced,” coupled with the insurer’s own investigator finding the theft genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurer cannot justify repudiation of the claim.

Summary: The appellant’s tractor was insured on 19.06.2010 and stolen on 28.10.2010, with an FIR lodged the same day. The claim, however, was submitted to the insurer on 15.12.2010, 52 days later, and rejected on grounds of delay. The District Forum and State Commission upheld the claim, but the National Commission, relying on Trilochan Jane and Parvesh Chander Chadha, reversed. On appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the policy condition requiring “immediate notice” must be interpreted contextually. For accidents, insurers require prompt notice to assess damages. But in theft cases, the insurer’s role is secondary to police investigation; timely FIR and police report suffice to establish theft. To deny claims on hyper-technical grounds undermines consumer protection, especially when theft is undisputed and proven genuine by investigators. The Court approved Om Prakash as laying down the correct approach.

Decision: Appeal allowed. National Commission’s order set aside; District Forum’s award of Rs. 4,70,000/- with 12% interest restored. Insurer directed to pay balance claim with accrued interest within six weeks.