JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 11-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 175
175
JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 11, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle –
Delay in informing the insurance company– Claim repudiated–
Appellant filed complaint before District forum, allowed – Appeal,
dismissed by State Commission – Appellant had also filed appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation which was partly allowed as
the rate of interest awarded was increased from 6% to 9% – Revision
Petition filed by Insurance Company, allowed by NCDRC – On appeal,
held: FIR was lodged immediately by the appellant on the next day of
the occurrence of theft of the vehicle – Accused were also arrested
and chargesheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out –
Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that
it was not genuine but only on the ground of delay – When the claim
of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance
Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground
that there was delay in intimating about the occurrence of the theft –
NCDRC should not have set aside the orders of the District Forum
and State Commission by holding that the repudiation of the insurance
claim by the insurance company was justified – Impugned order set
aside – Order of State Commission affirmed.
Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd. & Another 2020 (11) SCC 612 : [2020]
2 SCR 564 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 2 SCR 564
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1069 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
Petition No.1104 of 2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Avinash Lakhanpal, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs. for the
Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
9th September, 2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the NCDRC”) in
Revision Petition No. 1104 of 2016 whereby the NCDRC while allowing
the said Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company,
has set aside the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Haryana at Panchkula and
the order dated 26th February, 2015 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.
2.  Heard Mr. Avinash Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant. None has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents though duly served.
3. The precise question that falls for consideration before this
Court is -whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim in
toto, made by the owner of the vehicle, which was duly insured with the
insurance company, in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft, merely on
the ground that there was a delay in informing the company regarding
the theft of vehicle?
4. The undisputed facts transpiring from the record are that the
vehicle in question i.e., Tata Aiwa Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-
02-098177 was purchased by the appellant on 31.10.2007. The said vehicle
was duly insured with Respondent No. 1- Insurance Company. The said
vehicle was robbed by some miscreants on 04.11.2007. Consequently,
an FIR was registered by the appellant-complainant on 05.11.2007 for
the offence under Section 395 IPC at Police Station Nagina, District
Mewat (Haryana). The police arrested the accused and also filed the
challan against them in the concerned Court, however, the vehicle in
question could not be traced and, therefore, the police filed untraceable
report on 23.08.2008. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with
the Insurance Company with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question.
The Insurance Company, however, failed to settle the claim within a
reasonable time, and therefore, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint
being the Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2010 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
5. It may be noted that during the pendency of the complaint
before the District Forum, the respondent no.1- Insurance Company
repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.10.2010,
stating inter alia that there was a breach of condition no

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