CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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