GURMEL SINGH versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 563
563
GURMEL SINGH
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Insurance – Insurance companies refusing insurance claim
on flimsy grounds and / or technical grounds – Impropriety of –
Held: While settling insurance claims, insurance company should
not be too technical and ask for documents, which the insured is
not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control
– On facts, when appellant-insured had produced photocopy of
certificate of registration of the insured vehicle (truck) and
registration particulars as provided by the Regional Transport
Office (RTO), non-settlement of appellant’s claim solely on the ground
that the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen)
is not produced, can be said to be deficiency in service – Respondent-
insurance company ought not to have become too technical and
ought not to have refused to settle the insurance claim of appellant
on non-submission of duplicate certified copy of certificate of
registration, which the appellant could not produce due to
circumstances beyond his control – Appellant could not produce
such duplicate certificate as the RTO refused to issue the same on
ground that due to report of theft of the insured vehicle, details of
registration certificate on the computer were locked – Appellant
was wrongly denied the insurance claim – He is entitled to the
insurance amount along with interest @ 7% from date of submitting
the claim – Respondent-insurance company to pay litigation cost,
quantified at Rs.25,000/-, to appellant – Consumer Protection –
Deficiency in Service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The insurance claim has not been settled mainly
on the ground that the appellant has not produced either the
original certificate of registration or even the duplicate certified
copy of certificate of registration issued by the RTO. However,
the appellant did produce photocopy of certificate of registration
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
and other registration particulars as provided by the RTO. Even,
at the time of taking the insurance policy and getting the
insurance, the insurance company must have received the copy
of the certificate of registration. Therefore, the appellant had tried
his best to get the duplicate certified copy of certificate of
registration of the Truck. However, because of the report of theft
of the Truck, the details of registration on the computer have
been locked and the RTO has refused to issue the duplicate
certified copy of registration. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstance of the case,  when the appellant had produced the
photocopy of certificate of registration and the registration
particulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground that
the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is
not produced, non settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency
in service. Therefore, the appellant has been wrongly denied the
insurance claim. [Para 4][567-B-E]
2. In the present case, the insurance company has become
too technical  while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily.
The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which
were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish.
Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by
way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the  insurance company
ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have
refused to settle the claim on non-submission of the duplicate
certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant
could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control.
In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are
refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or  technical grounds.
While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be
too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not
in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
[Para 4.1][567-F-H]
3. The order passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, dismissing the complaint filed by the
appellant and the orders passed by the State Commission and
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, confirming
the same are hereby set aside. [Para 5][568-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4071
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2021 of the National
Con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.