SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 70

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDY, B.R. GAVAI , JJ.
GURSHINDER SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 653 OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24370 of 2015)
Decided On : 24-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Karan Dewan, Rahul Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Praveen Swarup, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
When an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.

Headnote:

(a) Interpretation - Insurance contract - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy - Rule of contra preferatum - In case of ambiguity interpretation favouring the party with lesser bargaining power should be preferred. (Para 11)

(b) Interpretation - Insurance contract - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy - Standard Form - Condition 1 - Theft of vehicle - Immediate information/FIR to police and the insurance company - Desirable to file claim with insurance company along with copy of FIR only after police finds that claim of theft is genuine. (Para 16)

(c) Interpretation - Insurance contract - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy - Standard Form - Condition 1 - Theft of vehicle - Insured’s duty to cooperate - Only the breaches prejudicial to insurance company matter - Mere delay in informing the theft to insurer, after informing it to police, cannot amount to a breach of ‘duty to co­operate’ of the insured. (Para 17)

(d) Interpretation - Insurance contract - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy - Standard Form - Condition 1 - Theft of vehicle - Not fair for insurer to repudiate claim of theft found to be genuine by police merely on account of delay. (Para 18, 19)

Facts of the case:

Noticing that there is a conflict between the decisions of the Bench of the two Judges in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance, Civil Appeal No.15611/ 2017 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739/ 2010: 2009 (1) CLT 552 on the question, as to 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 this matter has been referred to three­Judge Bench.

Finding of the Court:

The National Commission was not justified in reversing the concurrent orders of the District Forum and the State Commission.

Result: View in Om Prakash is correct view.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Noticing that there is a conflict between the decisions of the Bench of the two Judges of this Court in Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr., Civil Appeal No.15611/ 2017 decided on 04.10.2017 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739/ 2010 decided on 17.08.2010; 2009 (1) CLT 552] on the question, as to 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. The Bench of two Judges of this Court vide Order dated 09.01.2018 has referred the matter to a three­Judge Bench.

3. The appellant had got his tractor insured with the respondent(s) on 19.06.2010. On 28.10.2010, the tractor was stolen and an FIR was lodged on the same day. However, the claim was submitted to the respondent(s) on 15.12.2010. It was rejected on the ground that intimation was given belatedly after 52 days. The appellant herein, therefore, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, Punjab, (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) vide Complaint No. 380 of 2011. The District Forum, relying on the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in the case of Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) and T.D.P. Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. vs. Charanjit Kaur and Ors., 2011(3) CPC 422 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,000/­ being the declared insured value of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the respondents were made liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till payment.

4. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”). The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.03.2013.

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission, the respondents preferred a Revision Petition before the National Commission. The National Commission relying on its earlier judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) allowed the revision petition thereby setting aside the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.

6. When the matter was heard by the two­Judge bench of this Court, it noticed that though in the case of Om Prakash (supra), the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on the day after the theft occurred, the intimation was sent to the insurance company much later. This Court took the view that delay in informing the insurance company would not debar the insured to get the insurance claim. Per contra, it noticed that in the case of Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra), this Court accepted the contention of the insurance company that on account of delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft, though the FIR was lodged immediately, the insurance company was entitled to repudiate the claim of the claimant. Hence, the present appeal.

7. It will be relevant to refer to Condition No.1 of the Standard Form for Commercial Vehicles Package Policy, which reads as follows:

    “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending pro


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top