Gurmel Singh vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. case

Gurmel Singh vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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

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   nonsettlement 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, nonsettlement 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