SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Insurance claim can’t be denied on technical ground – Apex Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:- May 20, 2022

Supreme Court Observed in recent judgement (Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd) that there is no dispute that the vehicle belonging to the appellant was insured with the respondent company. It is also not in dispute that a FIR has been registered on the very day on which the vehicle was stolen.

The RTO denied issuing the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration, on the ground that details regarding registration certificate on the computer has been locked. The insurance claim has not been settled mainly on the ground that the appellant has not produced either the original certificate of registration or even the duplicate certified copy. The appellant has been wrongly denied the insurance claim.

Facts - Appellant / complainant registered owner of the Truck , vehicle was insured with the respondent 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 23­24.03.2013 in the midnight, the said vehicle was stolen.

A FIR was immediately lodged, 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 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued direction that the appellant 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 applied before the RTO for obtaining duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of the Truck in question.

However, RTO denied issuing 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 applied 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 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 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.  

Apex Court held that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce. Appellant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs along with interest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim. Appeal Allowed.

Gurmel Singh

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.                         

 

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/20-May-2022-Gurmel-Vs-National-Insurance.pdf.pdf"]

Latest Legal News