Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
Harpreet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1244 of 2015
Decided On : 23-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mohd. Anis ur Rehman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Triveni Potekar, Advocate.
A complaint is premature if the claim has not been repudiated by the insurance company, and the petitioner must follow the procedure outlined in the policy terms for claim assessment.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Premature Complaint
Fact of the Case:
The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner based on the judgment in Muralidhar Sarangi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., citing that the vehicle being burnt by naxalites exempts the insurance company from liability. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint on delayed intimation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was premature as the claim had not been repudiated by the insurance company. It directed the petitioner to arrange for the vehicle to be inspected and file a formal claim, after which the insurance company would assess the claim as per the policy terms.
Issues: Premature complaint, delayed intimation, liability of insurance company
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was premature as the claim had not been repudiated by the insurance company. It directed the petitioner to arrange for the vehicle inspection and file a formal claim, after which the insurance company would assess the claim as per the policy terms.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court disposed of the revision petition with the specified terms.
ORDER :
Rekha Gupra, Presiding Member
I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner citing the judgment in the matter of Muralidhar Sarangi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., II (2000) SLT 468 decided on 28.2.2000 and they have contended that since the vehicle was burnt by naxalites, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complaint. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint on delayed intimation.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also respondent No. 1 admit that the claim has not been repudiated by the insurance company, hence, to that extent the complaint is premature. At best the allegation of the complaint could be that the final response of the insurance company has not been received by him in spite of passage of time. The insurance company had written to the petitioner/complainant on 27.6.2009 to send the vehicle to any workshop or any convenient place so that the vehicle could be inspected by a surveyor to assess the loss. It is an admitted fact that the surveyor could not go of his own to the police station and ask for dismantling of the seized vehicle to inspect the same.
3. In view of the above, both the parties have fairly conceded that the petitioner may arrange to send the vehicle to any workshop or any convenient place within eight weeks and intimate the location to the respondent. Thereafter the insurance company may arrange to get the motor vehicle surveyed within one week of receiving intimation from the petitioner. The petitioner may also file a formal claim with the respondent/insurance company and the insurance company may then take a decision of the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy and communicate the same to the petitioner/ complainant.
The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of in the above-mentioned terms.
