(Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Gurshinder Singh __________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another _______ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24370/2015, decided on January 9, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance1. In that case, the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on the day after the theft occurred and intimation was sent to the insurance company about the theft much later.
2. This Court took the view that the delay in informing the insurance company would not debar the insured from getting the insurance claim.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of a Bench of two Judges in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha2. In that case, the theft of the vehicle took place between 18th January, 1995 and 20th January, 1995. The first information report was lodged on 20th January, 1995. The intimation was given to the insurance company after a gap of about 82 days. On the basis of delay in informing the insurance company, this Court accepted the contention of the insurance company that the claim deserved to be repudiated.
4. In view of the conflict of views1, 2 expressed by two Benches of this Court consisting of two learned Judges each, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. The matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a 3-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict.
5. In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, the insurance company will deposit 75% of the claimed amount in the Registry of this Court. The amount be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of one year.
———
1 (2017) 9 SCC 724 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 759
2 (2018) 9 SCC 798 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 592
