Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Gurmel Singh – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Insurance – Theft of insured Truck – Non-settlement of claim for not filing relevant documents – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – FIR was immediately lodged in Police Station – On same day, complainant also informed insurance company as well as Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding theft of Truck – RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration on the ground that due to report of theft of Truck, details regarding registration certificate on computer has been locked – Appellant had produced photocopy of certificate of registration and registration particulars as provided by RTO – Solely on the ground that original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service – Appellant has been wrongly denied insurance claim – Insurance company has become too technical while settling claim and has acted arbitrarily – Appellant has been asked to furnish documents which were beyond control of appellant to procure and furnish – Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and Truck was stolen, insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle claim on non-submission of duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which appellant could not produce due to circumstances beyond his control. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Insurance – Theft of insured Truck – Non-settlement of claim for not filing relevant documents – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – In many cases, it is found that insurance companies are refusing claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds – While settling claims, insurance company should not be too technical and ask for documents, which insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control – Order passed by District Forum, dismissing complaint filed by appellant and orders passed by State Commission and National Commission, confirming the same deserve to be set aside and hereby set aside – Insurance amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs along with 7% interest as well as litigation cost of 25,000/- awarded. (Paras 4.1 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2898/2015, by which, appellant is denied the relief of settling the claim under insurance policy, the original complainant – appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs along with interest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim. The respondent – insurance company is also saddled with liability to pay the litigation cost, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant herein. Such amount is to be paid by the insurance company to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2898/2015, by which, the appellant is denied the relief of settling the claim under the insurance policy, the original complainant-appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein-original complainant was the registered owner of the Truck bearing No. CG-04-JC-4984. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent herein- insurance company for the period from 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. The appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 28,880/to the respondent towards premium. On 23/24.03.2013 in the midnight, the said vehicle was stolen. A FIR was immediately lodged in the Police Station Kumhari, which was registered as FIR No. 57/13. On the same day, the complainant also informed the insurance company as well as the Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the theft of the Truck. That after giving information regarding theft, the appellant submitted all the documents sought by the insurance company, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim. That being aggrieved by the delay in settling the claim, the appellant filed the consumer complaint No. 200/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposed of the said complaint vide order dated 03.12.2013 with the direction that the appellant herein would furnish duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of Truck to the insurance company within a month and that the insurance company within a month after receiving the same would settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that in compliance of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appellant submitted an application before the RTO for obtaining duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of the Truck in question. However, RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration on the ground that due to the report of the theft of the Truck, the details regarding registration certificate on the computer has been locked. Therefore, the RTO refused to issue the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of the Truck. Thereafter, the appellant-original complainant submitted an application before the insurance company along with photocopy of the certificate of registration and registration particulars, as provided by the RTO. Despite the above, the claim was not settled and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh consumer complaint bearing No. 179/2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. That the said District Commission vide order dated 23.01.2015 dismissed the said complaint by observing that as the appellant had not filed the relevant documents for settlement of claim therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannot be said to be deficiency in service. The order passed by the District Commission has been confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the impugned judgment and order.
3. We have heard Shri Anand Shankar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Hetu Arora Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company.
4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the appellant was insured with the respondent-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the same was valid for the period between 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. It is also not in dispute that the appellant herein paid a sum of Rs. 28,880/- to the respondent towards premium. It is also not in dispute that the insured vehicle was stolen for which a FIR has been registered in the Police Station Kum
Insurance – While settling claims, insurance company should not be too technical and ask for documents, which insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
The Consumer Protection Act prioritizes consumer interests, allowing claims to proceed despite delays if satisfactorily explained, emphasizing pragmatic interpretation over hyper-technicality.
1. Delay in filing FIR and insurance claim to be condoned if reasonable explanation given, especially in case of theft of vehicle.2. Mere delay cannot be a reason for not providing claim as per Apex....
Insurance claims cannot be denied on technical grounds if the insurer has accepted premium payments, ensuring consumer protection under the law.
Theft There is delay on part of the appellant in intimating the police regarding occurrence of the alleged theft, the insurance company cannot be held deficient in service on this ground also, as the....
The insured's noncompliance with policy terms results in non-entitlement to full claims; partial payment based on compliance is justified.
(1) The insurer is required to enquire from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim. The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liabl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
