The bench comprising of Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai passed judgment in the case titled Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case brief:
The appellant had got his tractor insured with the respondent(s) the tractor was stolen and an FIR was lodged on the same day. However, the claim was submitted to the respondent(s) after 52 days. The claim was rejected on the ground that intimation was given belatedly after 52 days.
The appellant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, Punjab. The District Forum, relied on the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Parvesh Chander Chadha and T.D.P. Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. vs. Charanjit Kaur and Ors. allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,000/ being the declared insured value of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the respondents were made liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till payment.
The Supreme Court of India relied upon one of its cases, case of Om Prakash, the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on the day after the theft occurred, intimation was sent to the insurance company much later. This Court took the view that delay in informing the insurance company would not debar the insured to get the insurance claim.
The court also relied upon a case of Parvesh Chander Chadha with similar facts wherein, this Court accepted the contention of the insurance company that on account of delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft, though the FIR was lodged immediately, the insurance company was entitled to repudiate the claim of the claimant.
This Court observed that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves a liberal construction.
The Supreme Court explained that, “the object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police are immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.”
It was also held by this Court that, “the registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would substantiate the claim of the claimant that the vehicle is stolen. Not only that, but the surveyors appointed by the insurance company are also required to enquire whether the claim of the claimant regarding the theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, upon inquiry, finds that the claim of theft is genuine then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR, in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen.”
The impugned Judgment and order passed by the National Commission was quashed and set aside. The order of the District Forum as maintained by the State Commission was maintained.
The amount, i.e., 75% of the claim amount deposited by the respondents, pursuant to the orders of this Court in this Registry was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant along with interest accrued thereon. The remainder shall be paid by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the judgment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount of Rs.4,70,000/ from the date of the order of the District Forum till its realization.
Read the Judgment:
Citation : 2020 Latest Caselaw 78 SC, GURSHINDER SINGH vs. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Picture Source :
