Delay in informing the insurance company would not debar the insured from getting the insurance claim

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 14th February 2020 

Gurshinder Singh v. Sriram Genaral Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil appeal no. 653/2020)

Facts of the case:

1. This case Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2015 in RP No. 2463/2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
2. The appellant had got his tractor insured with the respondents on 19/06/2010. On 28/10/2010, the tractor was stolen and an FIR was lodged on the same day. However, the claim was submitted to respondents on 15/01/2010. It was rejected on the ground that intimation was given be lately after 52 days. The appellant herein, therefore, approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, Punjab. Vide complaint of 380 of 2011.
3. The District Consumer Redressal Forum allowed complaint and directed the respondents to pay sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- bring the declared insured value of the vehicle to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which respondents were made liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date order till payment.          
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal appeal before the State Consumer Dispute Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab the state commission dismissed the appeal order dated 26/03/2013.
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the state commission, the respondents preferred a revision petition before National Commission. National commission allwed the revision petition thereby setting aside the orders of the district forum as well as state commission and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the appeallant is before Supreme Court.   

Judgment: 

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Bench of 2-Judges of this Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr.^[1] In that case, the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on the day after the theft occurred and intimation Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.01.10 was sent to the insurance company about the theft.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of a Bench of 2-Judges in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha^[2] [Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010] decided on 17th August, 2010. In that case, the theft of the vehicle took place between 18th January, 1995 and 20th January, 1995. The first information report was lodged on 20th January, 1995. The intimation was given to the insurance company after a gap of about 82 days. On the basis of delay in informing the insurance company, this Court accepted the contention of the insurance company that the claim deserved to be repudiated.
3. In view of the conflict of views expressed by two Benches of this Court consisting of two learned Judges each, are of the opinion that the matter requires to be heard by a Bench of 3-learned Judges. The matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a 3-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict. In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, the insurance company will deposit 75% of the claimed amount in the Registry of Supreme Court.

^[1] [(Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017) decided on 4th October, 2017]

^[2] [(Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010) decided on 17th August, 2010]