Supreme Court of India
GURMEL SINGH versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. on 20 May 2022
GURMEL SINGH
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Insurance – Insurance companies refusing insurance claimon flimsy grounds and / or technical grounds – Impropriety of –Held: While settling insurance claims, insurance company shouldnot be too technical and ask for documents, which the insured isnot in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control– On facts, when appellant-insured had produced photocopy ofcertificate of registration of the insured vehicle (truck) andregistration particulars as provided by the Regional TransportOffice (RTO), non-settlement of appellant’s claim solely on the groundthat the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen)is not produced, can be said to be deficiency in service – Respondent-insurance company ought not to have become too technical andought not to have refused to settle the insurance claim of appellanton non-submission of duplicate certified copy of certificate ofregistration, which the appellant could not produce due tocircumstances beyond his control – Appellant could not producesuch duplicate certificate as the RTO refused to issue the same onground that due to report of theft of the insured vehicle, details ofregistration certificate on the computer were locked – Appellantwas wrongly denied the insurance claim – He is entitled to theinsurance amount along with interest @ 7% from date of submittingthe claim – Respondent-insurance company to pay litigation cost,quantified at Rs.25,000/-, to appellant – Consumer Protection –Deficiency in Service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The insurance claim has not been settled mainlyon the ground that the appellant has not produced either theoriginal certificate of registration or even the duplicate certifiedcopy of certificate of registration issued by the RTO. However,the appellant did produce photocopy of certificate of registration
563
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
Aand other registration particulars as provided by the RTO. Even,at the time of taking the insurance policy and getting theinsurance, the insurance company must have received the copyof the certificate of registration. Therefore, the appellant had triedhis best to get the duplicate certified copy of certificate ofregistration of the Truck. However, because of the report of theftBof the Truck, the details of registration on the computer havebeen locked and the RTO has refused to issue the duplicatecertified copy of registration. Therefore, in the facts andcircumstance of the case, when the appellant had produced thephotocopy of certificate of registration and the registrationCparticulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground thatthe original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) isnot produced, non settlement of claim can be said to be deficiencyin service. Therefore, the appellant has been wrongly denied theinsurance claim. [Para 4][567-B-E]
D2. In the present case, the insurance company has becometoo technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily.The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents whichwere beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish.Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum byway of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance companyEought not to have become too technical and ought not to haverefused to settle the claim on non-submission of the duplicatecertified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellantcould not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control.In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are
Frefusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds.While settling the claims, the insurance company should not betoo technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is notin a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.[Para 4.1][567-F-H]G3. The order passed by the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, dismissing the complaint filed by theappellant and the orders passed by the State Commission andNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, confirmingthe same are hereby set aside. [Para 5][568-A-B]
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4071of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2021 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RevisionPetition No.2898 of 2015.
Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Devgan, GirishBhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Hetu Arora Sethi, Abhimanyu Verma, Advs. for theRespondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned finaljudgment and orderdated 03.08.2021 passed by the National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2898/2015, by which, the appellant is denied the relief of settling theclaim under the insurance policy, the original complainant – appellantherein has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein – original complainant was theregistered owner of the Truck bearing No. CG-04-JC-4984. The saidvehicle was insured with the respondent herein – insurance companyfor the period from 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. The appellant also paid asum of Rs. 28,880/- to the respondent towards premium. On 23-24.03.2013 in the midnight, the saidvehiclewas stolen. A FIR wasimmediately lodged in the Police Station Kumhari, which was registeredas FIR No. 57/13. On the same day, the complainant also informed theinsurance company as well as the Regional Transport Office(RTO)regarding the theft of the Truck. That after giving informationregarding theft, the appellant submitted all the documents sought by theinsurance company, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim.That being aggrieved by the delay in settling the claim, the appellant filedthe consumer complaint No.200/2013 before the District ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposed of the said complaintvide order dated 03.12.2013 with the direction that the appellant hereinwould furnish duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration ofTruck to the insurance company within a month and that the insurance A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Acompany within a month after receiving the same would settle the claimas per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is the case onbehalf of the appellant that in compliance of the order passed by theDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appellantsubmitted an application before the RTO for obtaining duplicate certifiedcopy of the certificate of registration of the Truck in question. However,BRTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of the certificate ofregistration on the ground that due to the report of the theft of the Truck,the details regarding registration certificate on the computer has beenlocked. Therefore, the RTO refused to issue the duplicate certified copyof the certificate of registration of the Truck. Thereafter, the appellant –Coriginal complainant submitted an application before the insurancecompany along with photocopy of the certificate of registration andregistration particulars, as provided by the RTO.Despite the above, theclaim was not settled and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh consumercomplaint bearing No. 179/2014 before the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. That the said DistrictDCommission vide order dated 23.01.2015 dismissed the said complaintby observing thatas the appellant had not filed the relevant documentsfor settlement of claim therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannotbe said to be deficiency in service. The order passed by the DistrictCommission has been confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter,Eby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by theimpugned judgment and order.
3. We have heard Shri Anand Shankar Jha, learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Hetu Arora Sethi, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – insurance company.F
4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the appellantwas insured with the respondent – insurance company. It is also not indispute that the same was valid for the period between 22.08.2012 to21.08.2013. It is also not in dispute that the appellant herein paid a sumof Rs. 28,880/- to the respondent towards premium. It is also not inGdispute that the insured vehicle was stolen for which a FIR has beenregistered in the Police Station Kumharion the very day on which thevehicle was stolen. Immediately on the very same day, the appellantinformed the insurance company as well as RTO regarding the theft ofthe Truck. The appellant also produced the photocopy of the certificateof registration and the registration particularsas provided by the RTO.H
However, the appellant could not produce either the original certificateof registration or the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registrationof the Truck. When the appellant applied for the duplicate certified copyof the certificate of registration, the RTO denied to issue the duplicatecertified copy on the ground that in view of information/reportregardingtheft of the vehicle, which has been registered with theRTO, the details regarding registration certificate on the computer hasbeen locked. The insurance claim has not been settled mainly on theground that the appellant has not produced either the original certificateof registration or even the duplicate certified copy of certificate ofregistration issued by the RTO. However, the appellant did producephotocopy of certificate of registration and other registration particularsas provided by the RTO. Even, at the time of taking the insurance policyand getting the insurance, the insurance company must have receivedthe copy of the certificate of registration. Therefore, the appellant hadtried his best to get the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registrationof the Truck. However, because of the report of theft of the Truck, thedetails of registration on the computerhave been locked and the RTOhas refused to issue the duplicate certified copy of registration. Therefore,in the facts and circumstance of the case, when the appellant hadproduced the photocopy of certificate of registration and the registrationparticulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the groundthat the originalcertificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-settlementof claimcan be said to be deficiency in service. Therefore, theappellant has been wrongly denied the insurance claim.
4.1 In the present case, the insurance company has become tootechnical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellanthas been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the controlof the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insuranceon payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen,the insurance company ought not to have become too technical andought not to have refused to settle the claim on non-submission of theduplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellantcould not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In manycases, it is found that the insurance companiesare refusing the claim onflimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, theinsurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents,which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstancesbeyond his control.
ABC
DE
F
G
H
A5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theorder passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Durg, Chhattisgarh, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant andthe orders passed by the State Commission and National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission, confirming the same deserve to be setaside and are hereby set aside. The original complaint being ConsumerBComplaint No. 179/2014 filed before the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh, is hereby allowed. Theappellant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs alongwithinterest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim. The respondent– insurance company is also saddled with the liability to pay the litigationCcost, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant herein.The aforesaid amount is to be paid by the insurance company to theappellant within a period of four weeks from today. The present appealis accordingly allowed.
DBibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
E
F
G
H