MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Dr. Srikant Pandey, Acting President and Dr. Monika Malik, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Bhagchand Patel – Respondent
First Appeal No.674 of 2022
(Arising out of order dated 06.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.152/2022 by District Commission, Jabalpur-2)
Decided on 4.12.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – On facts, 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 there is violation of policy terms and conditions – Thus, at the time of theft the vehicle was not registered, it constitutes a fundamental breach of policy terms and conditions as also provisions of Motor Vehicles Act – Also, in the instant case, the complainant lodged delayed FIR of theft of vehicle which is another breach of policy terms and conditions – In such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief – Appeal allowed, the impugned order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside – Consequently the complaint is dismissed. [Paras 15 to 21]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Dr. Monika Malik, Member.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-2 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.152/2022 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent has been allowed, the opposite party/appellant- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) has filed this appeal.
2. The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that the complainant had purchased a tractor bearing registration number MP- 20 MB-2068 on 11.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- which was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f.11.12.2017 to 10.12.2018 for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.6,88,750/- It is submitted that on 19.12.2017 he parked the subject tractor behind Shreyansh Tractor Shop at 7 pm and he did not find the same at 9 pm. Subsequently, on 21.12.2017 he lodged FIR with the police station- Panagar and the insurance company was also informed. On 31.05.2018 the insurance company sought certain documents which he furnished on 15.06.2018, despite that the insurance company did not pay the IDV of the vehicle. The complainant also gave registered notice dated 02.01.2021 to the insurance company to settle the claim within 7 days but the insurance company did not settle the claim till the date of filing of complaint. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company approached the District Commission seeking Rs.7,25,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs.
3. The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that on claim being received the insurance company appointed Surveyor Sunil Yadav for investigation who has submitted his report on 09.05.2018. During investigation necessary documents for deciding the claim were not received and therefore the insurance company sought documents vide letter dated 31.05.2018 from the complainant. On 21.09.2019 & 04.07.2020 letters were written to the complainant and FR was also sought. It is submitted that on 13.07.2020 police informed that the case is pending and therefore, the Final report cannot be produced. The insurance company also get verified the registration of the subject vehicle and it was found that the complainant had applied for registration of the subject vehicle and deposited requisite fee with the RTO Jabalpur after 8 days from the date of purchase of vehicle i.e. 11.12.2017. Thereafter on 21.12.2017 RTO Jabalpur registered the subject vehicle. The complainant did not apply for registration of the vehicle within time as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead, he had applied belatedly which is violation of Motor Vehicles Act as also policy conditions and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is further submitted that theft took place on 19.12.2017 of which FIR was lodged on 21.12.2017 and the insurance company was informed on 23.12.2017 whereas as per policy conditions immediate intimation is necessary. The complainant therefore violated the policy terms and conditions in not intimating the insurance company in time. Since FR was not received the claim could not be decided. The complainant’s complaint is premature. Since there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-insurance company to pay the claim amount of subject vehicle on total loss basis to the complainant within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- is also directed to be paid. It is directed that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within two months, same will carry intere
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ram Prakash Srivastava and Ors.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Indus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar
Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
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....
(1) In case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not applicable.(2) Theft of insured car – Once IDV of vehicle is fixed mutually and it endorsed on policy, insurance company shall be binding t....
Denial of Claim – there is delay on part of the appellant in intimating the police regarding occurrence of the alleged theft, the appellant’s claim has rightly been denied by the insurance company on....
(1) Definition of Fundamental Breach – An insurance company can only deny a claim in its entirety if there is a “fundamental breach” of policy conditions. A delay in reporting is generally considered....
(1) Immediate Notice – The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can b....
(1) Once insurer fails to mention particular ground for repudiation and processes claim with some positive action, Insurer cannot subsequently raise that ground and repudiate claim.(2) Contractual ob....
Insurance claims cannot be denied on technical grounds if the insurer has accepted premium payments, ensuring consumer protection under the law.
Insurance claim cannot be repudiated only on the ground of delay on part of complainant in intimating Insurance Company.
The Consumer Protection Act prioritizes consumer interests, allowing claims to proceed despite delays if satisfactorily explained, emphasizing pragmatic interpretation over hyper-technicality.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.