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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1216

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S SURYA ROSHNI LTD. – Respondent
SC/7/A/432/2023



Petitioner Advocates:SHUBHAM SHARMA ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

FA NO. 432/2023 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026

M/S. NATIONAL INUSRANCE CO. LTD. VS M/S SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 24.08.2023

Date of Hearing: 29.01.2026

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026

FIRST APPEAL NO.-432/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S. NATIONAL INUSRANCE CO.LTD.,

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,

2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,

NEW DELHI,

DELHI-110055

(Through: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate)

…Appellant

VERSUS

M/S. SURYA ROSHNI LTD,

THROUGH ITS SR.V.P.(TAXATION),

SH. RAJEEV KOTHARI,

PADAM TOWER -1, RAJENDRA PLACE,

NEW DELHI – 110008.

(Through: Mr. Harvinder Singh and

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocates)

…Respondent

MODIFIED PAGE 1 OF 14

##PAGE2##

FA NO. 432/2023 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026

M/S. NATIONAL INUSRANCE CO. LTD. VS M/S SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Sumit Prasad, Counsel for the

Appellant

Mr. Harvinder Singh and Mr. Aman Sharma , Counsel for the

Respondent

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per District Commission record are:

“2. The complainant took a car insurance policy for its vehicle

bearing registration no. DL6CJ8027 make/model HONDA CITY 2009

through SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt having Broker Code 289 for

which OP No.3 issued a policy on 22.02.2010 which was valid from

22.02.2010 to 21.02.2011. It was mentioned in the policy bond issued

by the OP No.3 that the OP no. 4 & 5 are the claim settlement

agencies. Needless to say that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.

16,566/- toward premium for the above policy.

3. The complainant states that on 18.02.2011, the above said vehicle

was lost and the complainant duly informed the police on dialing @

100 nos and to this effect, an FIR bearing no. 67/11 in the police

station- Paschim Vihar, Delhi was also registered. The complainant

also informed the OPs about the lost of above said vehicle and

registration of FIR bearing no. 67/11 in the police station- Paschim

Vihar, Delhi. At the time of spot survey, the complainant had shown

both original keys to the surveyor appointed by OPs. The surveyor

also clicked photographs of both original keys of the above said

vehicle.4

4. The complainant further states that untraced vehicle report filed

by the concerned IO of Police was also accepted by the Court of Shri

Rajnder Kumar, learned MM vide his order dated 10.10.2021.

However, the grievance of the complainant is that despite the

MODIFIED PAGE 2 OF 14

##PAGE3##

FA NO. 432/2023 D.O.D.: 27.02.2026

M/S. NATIONAL INUSRANCE CO. LTD. VS M/S SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

acceptance of the untraceable report by the Court of learned MM

and fulfilling all the requisites formalities by the complainant, the

OPs have not accepted the insurance claim.

5.It is submitted by the complainant that all affairs concerning the

insurance claim was being looked after by one Mr. Anil Bansal (V.P.

Commercial) and since Mr. Anil Bansal left his job on 16.07.2013

with the complainant therefore the complainant could not follow up

the insurance claim. The complainant further states that the

complainant has also informed OPs about the resignation of Mr. Anil

Bansal and also supplied all the requisite documents vide letter dated

19.05.2015 and email dated 20.05.2015 which were duly

acknowledged by the OPs. However, despite all, OPs had rejected

claim on the ground that it is time barred.

6. It is stated by the complainant that the claim of the complainant

was reconsidered by the OPs in view of the directions issued by the

IRDA in grievance no. GR1140115353 dated 07.10.2014. But despite

all, the OPs vide letter dated 14.07.2015 again repudiated claim of

the complainant on the following grounds:

a. There was a dispute regarding the date, time regarding the

registration of FIR.

b. Since my client had not provided both original keys to you, the

notices. Etc.

7.It is further submitted by the complainant that the complainant has

already informed the OPs regarding the lost of both original keys

and in this regards

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