NCDRC Holds Cholamandalam General Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Nationwide Shopper Disputes Redressal Fee, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a revision petition by Cholamandalam Insurance coverage and held that delay in informing the insurer concerning the theft doesn’t invalidate the declare if the insured promptly reviews the incident to the police.
Transient Info of the Case
The complainant purchased a brand new automobile and had it insured underneath a motor coverage by Cholamandalam Normal Insurance coverage. The automobile was stolen throughout the cowl interval. He reported to the police on the identical day by making a name to the management room and subsequently filed an FIR. He additionally reported to the insurer and made a declare for compensation. The insurer, nevertheless, denied the declare on the grounds of delay in reporting the theft. The complainant issued a authorized discover however obtained no aid. He then lodged a grievance for the insured worth of the automotive, compensation, and authorized bills earlier than the District Fee. The District Fee allowed the grievance, and the insurer thereafter approached the State Fee of Haryana with an attraction. The order of the District Discussion board was confirmed by the State Fee, holding the insurer liable to pay ₹7,81,850 together with 9% curiosity from the date of the grievance and ₹2,200 as the price of litigation. Aggrieved, the insurer approached the Nationwide Fee with a revision petition.
Arguments of Cholamandalam Normal Insurance coverage
The insurer rejected the declare on the premise that the theft was not reported to them after greater than three months. They contended that this delay was towards the coverage phrases, which stipulated intimation on a well timed foundation. They asserted that the declare rejection was reputable and that they acted based on coverage phrases. The insurer additionally asserted that there was no service deficiency on their half.
Observations by the Nationwide Fee
The Nationwide Fee famous that the first query was whether or not the delay in reporting the theft to the insurer warranted the repudiation of the declare. The fee concluded that the complainant had instantly reported the theft to the police via a management room name, and the FIR was registered inside an inexpensive time. Even although the insurer was notified later than 107 days, the Fee made its resolution primarily based on the ruling of the Supreme Court docket in Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram Normal Insurance coverage Firm Ltd., (2020) 11 SCC 612, that delay shouldn’t be important within the case of giving speedy intimation to the police. The Fee noticed that each the District Discussion board and the State Fee had issued reasoned and fact-based orders, holding the insurer poor in service. Since there have been concurrent findings of truth and there was neither a jurisdictional error nor a authorized irregularity, it dominated that no interference was known as for underneath the restricted revisional jurisdiction underneath Part 21(b) of the Shopper Safety Act, 1986. In help of its rationale, the Fee referred to the next rulings: Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance coverage Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI & Anr., Civil Attraction No. 432 of 2022, and Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Gross sales and Providers Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31, which insisted that revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised solely the place there’s error of legislation, jurisdictional extra, or materials irregularity. The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to prices.
Case Title: Cholamandalam MS Normal Insurance coverage Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Case Quantity: R.P. No. 2966 of 2016
