Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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