GURMEL SINGHversusBRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

                          [2022] 3 S.C.R. 563                            563


                         GURMEL SINGH                                    A
                                  v.
  BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022)
                           MAY 20, 2022                                  B
        [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
                                                                         C
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   D
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
                                                                         E
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           F
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                                     G
      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       H
                                 563
564            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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]
D            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
E     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
F     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]
G           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]

H
     GURMEL SINGH v. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL                                  565
                INSURANCE CO. LTD.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4071                      A
of 2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2021 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
Petition No.2898 of 2015.
     Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Devgan, Girish              B
Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Mrs. Hetu Arora Sethi, Abhimanyu Verma, Advs. for the
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               C
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
judgment and orderdated 03.08.2021 passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No.
2898/2015, by which, the appellant is denied the relief of settling the        D
claim under the insurance policy, the original complainant – appellant
herein has preferred the present appeal.
       2. That the appellant herein – original complainant was the
registered owner of the Truck bearing No. CG-04-JC-4984. The said
vehicle was insured with the respondent herein – insurance company             E
for the period from 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. The appellant also paid a
sum of Rs. 28,880/- to the respondent towards premium. On 23-
24.03.2013 in the midnight, the saidvehiclewas stolen. A FIR was
immediately lodged in the Police Station Kumhari, which was registered
as FIR No. 57/13. On the same day, the complainant also informed the
                                                                               F
insurance company as well as the Regional Transport Office
(RTO)regarding the theft of the Truck. That after giving information
regarding theft, the appellant submitted all the documents sought by the
insurance company, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim.
That being aggrieved by the delay in settling the claim, the appellant filed
the consumer complaint No.200/2013 before the District Consumer                G
Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposed of the said complaint
vide order dated 03.12.2013 with the direction that the appellant herein
would furnish duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of
Truck to the insurance company within a month and that the insurance
                                                                               H
566             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     company within a month after receiving the same would settle the claim
      as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is the case on
      behalf of the appellant that in compliance of the order passed by the
      District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appellant
      submitted an application before the RTO for obtaining duplicate certified
      copy of the certificate of registration of the Truck in question. However,
B
      RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of the certificate of
      registration on the ground that due to the report of the theft of the Truck,
      the details regarding registration certificate on the computer has been
      locked. Therefore, the RTO refused to issue the duplicate certified copy
      of the certificate of registration of the Truck. Thereafter, the appellant –
C     original complainant submitted an application before the insurance
      company along with photocopy of the certificate of registration and
      registration particulars, as provided by the RTO.Despite the above, the
      claim was not settled and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh consumer
      complaint bearing No. 179/2014 before the District Consumer Disputes
      Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh. That the said District
D
      Commission vide order dated 23.01.2015 dismissed the said complaint
      by observing thatas the appellant had not filed the relevant documents
      for settlement of claim therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannot
      be said to be deficiency in service. The order passed by the District
      Commission has been confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter,
E     by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the
      impugned judgment and order.
            3. We have heard Shri Anand Shankar Jha, learned counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Hetu Arora Sethi, learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – insurance company.
F            4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the appellant
      was insured with the respondent – insurance company. It is also not in
      dispute that the same was valid for the period between 22.08.2012 to
      21.08.2013. It is also not in dispute that the appellant herein paid a sum
      of Rs. 28,880/- to the respondent towards premium. It is also not in
G     dispute that the insured vehicle was stolen for which a FIR has been
      registered in the Police Station Kumharion the very day on which the
      vehicle was stolen. Immediately on the very same day, the appellant
      informed the insurance company as well as RTO regarding the theft of
      the Truck. The appellant also produced the photocopy of the certificate
      of registration and the registration particularsas provided by the RTO.
H
     GURMEL SINGH v. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL                                       567
         INSURANCE CO. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

However, the appellant could not produce either the original certificate            A
of registration or the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration
of the Truck. When the appellant applied for the duplicate certified copy
of the certificate of registration, the RTO denied to issue the duplicate
certified copy on the ground that in view of information/
reportregardingtheft of the vehicle, which has been registered with the
                                                                                    B
RTO, the details regarding registration certificate on the computer has
been locked. 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 and other registration particulars         C
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
                                                                                    D
details of registration on the computerhave 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 groundthat the original
certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-           E
settlementof claimcan be said to be deficiency in service. Therefore, the
appellant has been wrongly denied the insurance claim.
       4.1 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               F
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              G
cases, it is found that the insurance companiesare 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.                                                                 H
568             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A            5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
      Durg, Chhattisgarh, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant and
      the orders passed by the State Commission and National Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission, confirming the same deserve to be set
      aside and are hereby set aside. The original complaint being Consumer
B
      Complaint No. 179/2014 filed before the District Consumer Disputes
      Redressal Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh, is hereby allowed. The
      appellant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs alongwith
      interest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim. The respondent
      – insurance company is also saddled with the liability to pay the litigation
C     cost, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant herein.
      The aforesaid amount is to be paid by the insurance company to the
      appellant within a period of four weeks from today. The present appeal
      is accordingly allowed.


D     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeal allowed.




E




F




G




H