Delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle cannot be ground to repudiate the insurance claim

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. being Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 held that denying the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft would be taking a hyper technical view.

Facts
The appellant got his tractor insured with the respondent insurance company The tractor was stolen and an FIR was lodged on the same day. However, the claim for insurance was submitted to the respondent after a delay of 52 days. Condition No. 1 of the concerned insurance policy provided that ‘a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. Citing the said provision, the claim of the appellant as rejected on the ground that intimation was given belatedly. The appellant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum where the claim was allowed. The decision was confirmed State commission confirmed however, it was reversed by the National Commission.
Issue
Whether delay in informing the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company, though the FIR was registered immediately, would disentitle the claimant of the insurance claim
Ratio
The Supreme Court analysed Condition No. 1 which provides, that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co­operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The Court observed that the object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.
Based on the above, the Court held that immediate reporting to the police however, late reporting to the insurer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the insurance company. A mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of ‘duty to co­operate’ of the insured. Ultimately the Court held that if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view.