Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Shanti vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 816 of 2010
........
Smt. Shanti, w/o late Prakash Nag @ Prakash ..... Petitioner
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Main Road,
Bistupur, Jamshedpur & Others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. K. Pasari, Advocate
For the respondent No.1 : Mr. Basav Chatterjee, Advocate
..........
10/13.07.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. K. Pasari has submitted,
that petitioner- Smt. Shanti, w/o late Prakash Nag @ Prakash has preferred
this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by
learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. Case No.348 of
2008, whereby the claim application has been dismissed on the ground
that in view of the clause, there is delay of three months even after expiry
of statutory period of 90 days. As such, applicant is not entitled to get the
insured amount Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite party-National Insurance
Co. Ltd.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that at that
time claim was made for insured amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, but because of
elapse of time, interest is to be considered in view of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208, whereby interest has
been quantified @ 7.5% per annum simple interest from the date of filing
of the claim application till the date of reimbursement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. K. Pasari has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gurshinder Singh
vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in 2020
(11) SCC 612, and has submitted, that paras 18, 19 & 20 of the judgment
may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"18. We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra),
that in such a situation if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground
that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the
occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view. We find, that
this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that it would not be fair and
reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found
to be correct by the investigator.
19. We find, that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that
the Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting the interest of the consumers
and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. We find,
that in Om Prakash (supra) this Court has rightly held that mere delay in
intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a
shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be
genuine.
20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR
immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after
investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and
when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have
found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the
insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny
the claim of the insured."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Pasari has also relied
upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash
vs. Reliance General Insurance, reported in 2017 (9) SCC 724, and has
submitted, that para 11 of the judgment may profitably be quoted
hereunder:-
"11. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons
for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident.
The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of
Rs.7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims
Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National
Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of the
appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also
of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards compensation."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that writ
petition may be allowed as the facts are admitted.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Basav Chatterjee has
opposed the prayer and has submitted, that for any reason the matter
remains pending, for which the Insurance Company may not be saddled
with interest.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the
facts and circumstances that in a case of compensation because of
accident, which is a benevolent legislation, this Court is inclined to set
aside the impugned order, which is based upon the fact that application has
been filed after delay of three months of statutory period of 90 days,
accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
The compensation is fixed Rs.4,00,000/- as per insurance paper, but
the same shall be paid to the petitioner along with simple interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of
indemnifying the same.
The Insurance Company shall pay the same within reasonable time
as the accident is of dated 23.11.2004.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/
