Power Company Wins Rs.25.61 lakhs Theft Claim Against Repudiation for 25 days Intimation Delay
Repudiation of Theft Claim of Power Company for 25 days Intimation Delay
Judgment dated 7.9.2026 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No.133/2021 of M/s Teesta Valley Power Transmission Ltd Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
The complainant is the joint venture company for power transmission lines for total distance of 215 kms project insured under All Risk Insurance Policy.
On 25.3.2017, there was theft, the FIR was registered on 30.3.2017 and the Insurer was informed on 1.4.2017 for total theft loss of Rs.54,40,813/
The theft took place place in two stretches.
The Survey report dated 9.10.2018 suggested for refund of Rs.25,61,229/- to the complainant.
On 5.10.2020, the claim was repudiated.
.Clause 5 of the Policy provided that the Insurer shall not in any case be liable for loss, damage or liability of which the notice has been received by the company within 14 days of its detection.
It is a matter of record that the stretch “B” of the loss incurred by the Complainant was intimated to the Opposite Party on 19.04.2017, after a delay of 25 days from the date of detection of the alleged loss of approximately Rs. 42,00,000/- therefore the same is in clear violation of Clause 5 of the policy in question. However, the alleged loss in stretch “A” of approximately Rs.38,00,000/- was intimated by the Complainant to the Opposite Party within the period of 14 days as per the aforesaid clause.
Moreover, we find that a mere delay of 5 days in intimation is not a sufficient cause for repudiation of the claim of the Complainant. The theft took place at two stretches, and accounting for mobile components such as conductor wire and space dumper also takes time, computing the total loss suffered by the Complainant could delay the intimation along with the estimated cost of material stolen from the stretches in the entire area of 215 kms of the project in question.
Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the Complainant on the ground of a violation of policy terms and conditions in the form of delay in intimation is a bald averment and amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
.
