Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Kamlesh - Appellant
Versus
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.8796 of 2019
Decided on : 19-11-2019
For the Appellant(s) :Ajay Kumar, Manojr Rai, Kumar Shivam, Ashish Chaubey, Ranjih Kumar, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance amount cannot be unduly reduced when there is no infraction of conditions of insurance policy by insured.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Insurance – Damage to Truck in fire – Claim repudiated by respondent-insurance company on the basis of a report of Surveyor/Investigator that fire was not natural – National Commission quantified claim at 60% of IDV of vehicle – In the event of an occurrence of any accidental loss or damage, condition does not contemplate issuance of any notice to Police – Case that appellant came up with was of an accidental loss and if no immediate notice was issued to police, there was no infraction on part of appellant – There was no reason for National Commission to hold that there was any violation of requisite conditions on part of appellant and there was no justification to reduce claim to the extent of 60% of IDV of vehicle – Conclusions drawn and directions issued by State Commission directing insurance company to pay to complainant Rs. 13,50,000/- with 9% interest and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, were quite correct and did not call for any interference – View taken by National Commission set aside and order passed by State Commission restored. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
In respect of an accident which had occurred in the night intervening 1st/2nd June, 2009 in which a truck owned by appellant was damaged in fire, a claim was raised by the appellant. The claim was however, repudiated by the respondent-insurance company vide letter dated 9.9.2009 on the basis of a report of a Surveyor/Investigator that the fire was not natural. This appeal arises out of order dated 21.6.2019 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Findings of Court:
The case that the appellant came up with was of an accidental loss, and, therefore, if no immediate notice was issued to police, there was no infraction on part of the appellant. The accident had occurred during the night of 1st and 2nd June, 2009 and intimation was given to the respondent on 3rd of June, 2009. In our view, the notice was not delayed on any count and did satisfy requirements contemplated by the conditions in the policy.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
UDAY UMESH LALIT. J
1. This appeal arises out of order dated 21.6.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission” for short) at New Delhi in First Appeal No.797 of 2015.
2. In respect of an accident which had occurred in the night intervening 1st/2nd June, 2009 in which a truck owned by the appellant was damaged in fire, a claim was raised by the appellant. The claim was however, repudiated by the respondent-insurance company vide letter dated 9.9.2009 on the basis of a report of a Surveyor/Investigator that the fire was not natural.
3. In the circumstances, Consumer Complaint No.81/2010 was filed by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission” for short), Lucknow, U.P. alleging deficiency on part of the respondent. The principal prayer made in the complaint was:
“(a) That a direction may be issued to the opposite party no.1 for repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant amounting to Rs.13,50,000/- in his favour;”
4. The appellant also claimed compensation and costs. In its counter affidavit the stand taken by the respondent was as under:
“6. That the respondent appointed independent surveyor Shri S.K. Tiwari for spot survey on intimation of the alleged fire loss of the insured Truck. The Surveyor submitted spot report dated 23.6.2009 after inspecting the spot and vehicle on 3.6.2009. The spot surveyor in its report apart from pointing out the damages to the insured truck due to alleged fire, specifically gave observations to the effect that “it is the case of manipulations and fabrication. It needs further investigation”. The spot surveyor also submitted zerox copy of newspaper (Dainik Jagaran Daily) dated 3.6.2009. The observation of the spot surveyor to the effect that green grass and leaves etc. surrounding the burnt parts was well in order i.e. smiling, is very significant.
7. That in the light of observations and recommendation made by Spot Surveyor, the answering respondent got the matter investigated and through Sri Prabhakar Rai, Advocate who submitted is detailed report dated 31.8.2009. The investigator also categorically concluded in his report based upon various facts, statements and circumstances that the said incident of accident and fire is doubtful.”
5. The matter was considered by the State Commission and by its order dated 11.8.2015. The State Commission rejected the case set up by the respondent that there was no natural fire and the vehicle was set afire. It was, therefore concluded as under:
“It is established from the evidence produced by the opponent insurance company that the truck of the complainant was found in burnt condition at the place of accident on the next day of alleged incident. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the opponent insurance company is deficient in services by repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant. The insured value of the Truck in question is admittedly Rs.13 Lakh 50 Thousand. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to this amount with interest from the opponent insurance company.”
The claim of the appellant was accepted and following directions were issued:
“The opponent insurance company is hereby directed to pay the complainant 13,50,000 with 9% interest from the date of institution of the complaint till its payment within a period of one month. The opponent will also pay a Rs.10,000/-to the complainant as litigation expenses within the fixed period.
If the above amount is not paid within the time fixed then the opponent will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the entire amount to the complainant.
Both the parties will bear their own litigation expenses.”
6. The respondent being aggrieved, filed First Appeal No.797 of 2015 before the National Commission. It was observed that the incident occurred during the night o
