Karnataka High Court
G Hemanthkumar vs Divisional Manager on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
WP No.4 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.4 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. G. HEMANTHKUMAR
S/O G.D. GANESH
AGED 46 YEARS
R/O GARAGANDOOR VILLAGE
MADIKERE DISTRICT-571251.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by RUPA V (BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADV.,)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFICE, 1ST FLOOR
RAB BUILDING, A.A. CIRCLE
B.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201.
2. INSURANCE REGULATORY AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
SY NO.115/1, FINANCIAL DISTRICT
NANAKRAMGUDA, GACHILSOMLI
HYDERABAD-500032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1
HEREIN TO HONOR THE CLAIM OF RS.6,00,000/- MADE BY
THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE INSURANCE
POLICE AVAILED BY PETITION IN VEHICLE INSURANCE POLICY
NO.240401/31/01/21635 IN FORCE FROM 17.10.2002 TO
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
WP No.4 of 2021
13.3.2003 WITHOUT INSISTING FIR ANY FURTHER
INVESTIGATION OR PARTICULAR ALONG WITH THE INTEREST
AMOUNT AT THE RATE OF BANK INTEREST FROM THE DATE
OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE PETITIONER TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT AT ANENXURE-H.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking prayer to issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to honour
the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the petitioner in respect
of vehicle insurance policy availed by the petitioner in the
vehicle insurance policy No.240401/31/01/21635 in force
from 17.10.2002 to 13.03.2003 without insisting for any
further investigation or particulars, along with the interest
amount at the rate of bank interest from the date of claim
made by the petitioner till payment.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
is the absolute owner of the car Mitsubishi Lancer bearing
registration No.KA 04 Z 66 Engine No.3MNBY000915
purchased from one Sulaiman and the same was registered
on 17.07.2002 in the office of the RTO, Madikeri. It is the
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
further case of the petitioner that on 21.10.2002 when the
petitioner visited Hassan for his work and parked his
vehicle, the vehicle was stolen. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a complaint to the City Police, Hassan on 23.10.2002.
The information was registered as Crime No.243/2002 and
after completion of the investigation, 'C' report was filed by
the police as they could not trace the vehicle. It is averred
that despite number of requests by the petitioner, the
respondent - Insurance Company, who is the insurer of the
vehicle failed to settle the dues and claim of the petitioner on
the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to
approach the District Consumer Forum, Madikeri by filing a
complaint in CPA/K:117/2005. The District Consumer
Forum vide order dated 18.11.2005, partly allowed the claim
petition by directing the respondent No.1 to consider the
claim and all the documents sent by the petitioner and take
appropriate action immediately and inform the same to the
petitioner. Further, the District Forum directed the
respondent No.1 to pay damages of Rs.500/- and cost of
Rs.500/- to the petitioner. It is further averred that the
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
petitioner thereafter approached the respondent - Insurance
Company and requested to settle the claim. However, there
was no response from them.
3. The respondent - Insurance Company sent an
intimation dated 19.01.2006 informing the petitioner that
there are two registration certificates issued by two RTOs in
respect of the same vehicle and the probability of the same
being in doubt, the Company, based on the records available
before it, after due deliberation, decided to repudiate the
claim. The Insurance Company further directed the
petitioner to establish his title over the property before a
competent Civil Court. It is contended that pursuant to the
said intimation, the petitioner was compelled to file
OS.No.7/2009 before the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC at Hassan, seeking the relief of declaration of title
of ownership of Mitsubishi Lancer vehicle bearing No.KA 04
Z 66 and other reliefs. The Civil Court, vide judgment and
decree dated 02.02.2015 dismissed the suit. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed regular appeal in
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
R.A.No.148/2015, before the V Addl. District and Sessions
Judge at Hassan. The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated
16.12.2017 allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court by declaring that the petitioner
is the owner of the Mitsubishi Lancer car bearing
registration No. KA 04 Z 66.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued a legal notice
dated 17.01.2018 to the respondents requesting them to
settle the claim pursuant to the insurance policy. In
response, the respondent - Insurance Company vide reply
dated 09.03.2019 stated that they have requested the
Hassan police to re-open the case and have submitted the
documents, hence, they are not in a position to settle the
claim. The inaction of the respondents compelled the
petitioner to file this petition seeking prayer to issue
mandamus to the respondent No.1 to settle the claim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that the respondent -
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
Insurance Company on one pretext or the other is denying
the claim of the petitioner and also dragging him to different
forums. He submits that as per the communication dated
19.01.2006, the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for
declaration and even after getting the declaration from the
competent Civil Court, claim of the petitioner is not settled
by the respondents. It is further submitted that now the
respondents have informed that they are requesting the
police authorities to re-open the case. He also submits that
the respondent - Insurance Company withheld the claim
amount of the petitioner without any justifiable ground. He
therefore seeks to issue a mandamus to the respondents to
settle the claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that no doubt the petitioner has obtained the
declaration from the Civil Court, however the vehicle in
question was owned by two persons as is evident from the
RTO records. Hence, the Insurance Company is making a
request to the police to re-open the case so that the
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
ownership issue can be resorted at once. He further
submits that the police filed 'C' report on the ground that
they could not trace the vehicle. In effect, the investigation
is not completed. Hence, they have sought for re-opening of
the case and until the investigation is complete, the
Insurance Company is unable to settle the claim of the
petitioner. He therefore seeks to dismiss the writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused
the material available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a
claim petition before the respondents claiming to settle the
dues under the policy obtained by him. When the same was
not entertained, the petitioner approached the District
Consumer Forum, Madikeri. The District Consumer Forum,
Madikeri vide order dated 18.11.2005 directed the
respondent - Insurance Company to consider the claim of
the petitioner and take appropriate action immediately and
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
inform the petitioner soon. The decision of the Consumer
Forum has attained finality. Despite the same, the
Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the
petitioner.
9. The material on record indicates that the
respondent issued a communication dated 19.01.2006
stating that there are two registration certificates issued by
two RTOs in respect of the same vehicle and directed the
petitioner to establish the title to the property in a
competent Civil Court. Pursuant to the said endorsement,
the petitioner approached the competent Civil Court and got
declaration that the petitioner is the owner of Mitsubishi
Lancer car bearing registration No.KA 04 Z 66. The
proceedings before the Civil Court indicate that one
K.Shivappa who claims to be the owner of the disputed
vehicle, has been arrayed as respondent No.3. In the said
proceedings, the Insurance Company has been arrayed as
respondent. After hearing the parties, the Civil Court
declared the petitioner as the owner. When things stood
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
thus, there is no justification for the respondent - Insurance
Company to deny the claim of the petitioner. Now, the
Insurance Company vide communication dated 09.03.2019
is taking a different stand that they are now requesting the
Hassan police to re-open the criminal case and until the said
case is resolved, the claim cannot be settled. In my
considered view, such a stand by the Insurance Company is
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgment of the Civil
Court. The very Insurance Company directed the petitioner
to obtain the declaration from the Civil Court with regard to
the ownership of the vehicle and after obtaining the decree
of declaration of title, different stand taken by the
respondent - Insurance Company is impermissible. This
Court is of the considered view that even if the criminal case
is re-opened and investigation is continued, it has no
bearing on the claim of the petitioner. The decree of the
Civil Court has attained finality, hence the respondent -
Insurance Company is duty bound to honour the claim of
the petitioner without any further delay. The reason
assigned in the communication dated 09.03.2019 at
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6712
Annexure-G by the Insurance Company is illegal and
contrary to the decision of the District Consumer Forum and
the Civil Court. In view of the same, this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case to direct the respondents to settle
the claim of the petitioner without any further delay. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the claim
of the petitioner in respect of the policy bearing
No.240401/31/01/21635 which was in force from
17.10.2002 to 13.02.2003 without insisting any further
documents from him and consideration shall be done in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
