Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4071 OF 2022
Gurmel Singh …Appellant(s)
Versus
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at
New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2898/2015, by which,
the appellant is denied the relief of settling the claim under
the insurance policy, the original complainant – appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.05.20
17:52:27 IST
Reason:
herein has preferred the present appeal.
1
2. That the appellant herein – original complainant was the
registered owner of the Truck bearing No. CG04JC4984.
The said vehicle was insured with the respondent herein –
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 in the Police Station Kumhari, 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 No. 200/2013 before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
disposed of the said complaint vide order dated 03.12.2013
with the direction that the appellant herein would furnish
2
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 submitted an application before the RTO for
obtaining duplicate certified copy of the certificate of
registration of the Truck in question. However, RTO denied
to issue 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 submitted an application
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
3
complaint bearing No. 179/2014 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg,
Chhattisgarh. 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.
3. We have heard Shri Anand Shankar Jha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Hetu Arora
Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent – insurance company.
4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the
appellant was insured with the respondent – insurance
company. It is also not in dispute that the same was valid
for the period between 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. It is also
not in dispute that the appellant herein paid a sum of Rs.
28,880/ to the respondent towards premium. It is also not
4
in dispute that the insured vehicle was stolen for which a
FIR has been registered in the Police Station Kumhari on
the very day on which the vehicle was stolen. Immediately
on the very same day, the appellant informed the
insurance company as well as RTO regarding the theft of
the Truck. The appellant also produced the photocopy of
the certificate of registration and the registration
particulars as provided by the RTO. However, the appellant
could not produce either the original certificate of
registration or the duplicate certified copy of certificate of
registration of the Truck. When the appellant applied for
the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration,
the RTO denied to issue the duplicate certified copy on the
ground that in view of information/report regarding theft of
the vehicle, which has been registered with the RTO, the
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 of certificate of registration issued
by the RTO. However, the appellant did produce photocopy
5
of certificate of registration and other registration
particulars as provided by the RTO. Even, at the time of
taking the insurance policy and getting the insurance, the
insurance company must have received the copy of the
certificate of registration. Therefore, the appellant had tried
his best to get the duplicate certified copy of certificate of
registration of the Truck. However, because of the report of
theft of the Truck, the details of registration on the
computer have been locked and the RTO has refused to
issue the duplicate certified copy of registration. Therefore,
in the facts and circumstance of the case, when the
appellant had produced the photocopy of certificate of
registration and the registration particulars as provided by
the RTO, solely on the ground that the original certificate of
registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non
settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service.
Therefore, the appellant has been wrongly denied the
insurance claim.
4.1 In the present case, the insurance company has become
too technical while settling the claim and has acted
arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the
6
documents which were beyond the control of the appellant
to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance
on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck
was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have
become too technical and ought not to have refused to
settle the claim on nonsubmission of the duplicate
certified copy of certificate of registration, which the
appellant could not produce due to the circumstances
beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the
insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy
grounds and/or technical grounds. 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 due to circumstances beyond his
control.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh, dismissing the complaint
filed by the appellant and the orders passed by the State
Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, confirming the same deserve to be set aside
7
and are hereby set aside. The original complaint being
Consumer Complaint No. 179/2014 filed before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg,
Chhattisgarh, is hereby allowed. The appellant is entitled
to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs along with
interest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim.
The respondent – insurance company is also saddled with
the liability to pay the litigation cost, 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 the appellant within a period of four weeks from today.
The present appeal is accordingly allowed.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
May 20, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
8