Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insuarance

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15611 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.742 of 2015)

OM PRAKASH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appellant got his truck, bearing Registration

No.HR-21-F-0462, insured with Respondent No.1 herein, i.e. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2017.10.04

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., w.e.f. 10.03.2010 to 15:01:26 IST Reason:

09.03.2011. The said vehicle was stolen from Chopanki, Bhiwari, 2

Rajasthan on 23.03.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. Consequently, an

FIR was lodged, on 24.03.2010, in Police Station Tapkura, District

Alwar, Rajasthan, under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the

appellant visited the office of the first respondent but the office

was found to be closed. Then the appellant went to the place of

theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police

official. On 29.03.2010, the appellant along with the truck driver,

went with the police officials for their assistance to search the

vehicle. The appellant reached his village on 30.03.2010. On

31.10.2010, the appellant lodged the insurance claim with the

respondent-company at Hissar and provided the necessary

documents which were demanded by the respondent-company.

3. Pursuant to the said claim, an Investigator was appointed by

the Respondent-company, who, after verification, confirmed the

factum of theft. Consequently, the Corporate Claims Manager

approved an amount of Rs.7,85,000/- for the said claim of the

appellant. Thereafter, the appellant made several requests and

demands to the respondent-company, inter alia, seeking speedy

processing and disposal of his insurance claim. Finally, the 3

appellant served a legal notice, dated 09.08.2011, to the

respondent-company. However, the respondent-company

repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant citing breach of

Condition No. 1, i.e. immediate information about the loss/theft

of the vehicle.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed complaint before the,

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar (for short

‘District Forum’), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986, inter alia, seeking a direction to the

respondent-company for payment of claim amount with an

interest @ 18% per annum, along with compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant. Written statement was filed by

the respondents herein opposing the claim of the appellant. The

District Forum, by order dated 13.06.2013, dismissed the

complaint of the appellant thereby holding that there is no

deficiency of service on the part of respondents.

5. The appellant herein filed an appeal challenging the said

order of District Forum, before the State Consumer Dispute

Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short ‘State Commission’) at 4

Panchkula. The State Commission by an order dated 23.10.2013

dismissed the said appeal. This order was challenged by the

appellant by way of Revision Petition before the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘National

Commission’). This Revision Petition has been dismissed by the

National Commission by an order dated 12.02.2014. The

appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the said

order in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

appellant, immediately after getting the information about the

theft of the vehicle, went to the place of theft and met the police

officials along with the truck driver. Consequently, he got busy

with the police while visiting many cities in Rajasthan for the

search of the said vehicle and returned to his village on

30.03.2010 and lodged the insurance claim on 31.03.2010 before

the Respondent-company. The appellant has assigned cogent

reasons for the delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint. The

National Commission has dismissed the petition filed by the

appellant without taking into consideration the reasons assigned 5

for the delay. It is argued that the Investigator appointed by the

Respondent has verified the factum of theft and that the

Corporate Claims Manager approved the report of Investigator,

thereby recommending the payment of Rs.7,85,000/- towards

claim.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that as per the Condition No. 1 of the

Insurance Policy, the information of theft ought to have been

given to the respondent-company immediately upon the

occurrence of theft. The claim was filed after a delay 8 days from

the occurrence of theft. In the said circumstance, the National

Commission was justified in rejecting the revision petition.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on

record.

9. The appellant, owner of the truck in question, is the resident

of Muzadnagar village, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar, State of

Haryana. The theft of the vehicle had taken place on 23.03.2010

at Chopanki, Bhiwari, Rajasthan. The FIR was lodged in P.S. 6

Tapukra, District Alwar on 24.03.2010 and the claim petition was

filed on 31.03.2010. Dinesh, the truck-driver, had filed an

affidavit before the District Forum stating that the owner of the

truck had reached the place of occurrence of theft and met him

and also the concerned police official. The Police had asked him

and the owner to stay with them in order to help them for tracing

out the truck. The police had also asked them to collect

necessary documents in relation to the said truck. They were,

consequently, busy with the Rajasthan Police in searching the

vehicle. They visited many places in Rajasthan. The police had

compelled the appellant to accompany them while searching the

truck. It is only on 29.03.2010, the appellant went back and

reached his village on 30.03.2010. The appellant had also filed a

similar affidavit before the State Commission explaining the

reasons for the delay in informing theft of the vehicle.

10. Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy states that notice

shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the

occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any 7

claim and thereafter the insured has to give all such information

and assistance as the company may require.

11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle

may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim

compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.

It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately

after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not

bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in

intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable

circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has

to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely

technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of

confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the

reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained,

such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also

necessary to state here 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. The condition regarding

the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims 8

which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no

emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing

better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial

legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object

should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under

the Act.

12. 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.

13. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the orders of the National

Commission, State Commission and the District Forum are set

aside and the claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The 9

respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,35,000/-

to the appellant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of

filing of the the claim petition till the date of payment. The

payment, as above, shall be made within a period of 8 weeks

from today.

14. There will be no order as to costs.

……………………………J. (R.K. AGRAWAL)

……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi;

October 4, 2017.