State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dalvinder Singh on 5 September, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 66 / 2018
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
(A joint venture with Sanlam, South Africa)
having its Corporate Office at E-8, EPIP
RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur
through its Legal Officer Sh. Siddharth Pandey
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Dalvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh
R/o Jagatpura, Rudrapur
District Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 05/09/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, assails the legality and propriety of impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 11 of 2014; Sh. Dalvinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and others, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant - insurance company was directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- to the respondent - complainant together with Rs. 50,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.2
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent - complainant had got his truck bearing registration No. UK06-CA-1628 insured with Moradabad Branch Office of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 04.12.2010 to 03.12.2011 for sum of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The insured truck, however, met with an accident on 21.12.2010, intimation whereof was given at the toll free number of the insurance company. The subject vehicle is not in a position to be used. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and requested for payment of the claim amount, but the same was not paid by the insurance company. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the insurance company and filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading therein that no intimation was given by the complainant to the insurance company with regard to the accident of the insured vehicle. The insured vehicle has not been damaged. The vehicle produced by the complainant for insurance was completely different from the accidental vehicle, hence the claim was repudiated. The driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. No F.I.R. of the accident was lodged with the police. The claim put forward by the complainant is false and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2018, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.
35. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company through letter dated 26.05.2011 on the ground of misrepresentation. Relevant portion of the repudiation letter is reproduced below:
"With reference to the captioned claim preferred by you, we wish to state that there have been deliberate and willful misrepresentations on your part during insurance proposal.
The vehicle produced by you for
insurance (at the time of
Pre-inspection photograph) is
completely differs from the
Accidental Vehicle.
Hence we regret our inability to
consider your claim on the grounds of
misrepresentation."
7. In regard to the above ground of repudiation taken by the insurance company, it is worth mentioning here that the insurance company has not filed the photographs of the vehicle taken at the time of effecting the insurance, so that the same could be compared with the photographs of the accidental vehicle, in order to establish the stand taken in the repudiation letter. Learned District Commission has rightly held that the insurance company has not filed any evidence to substantiate their stand for repudiation of complainant's claim. We find ourselves in agreement with the view so taken by learned District Commission and are of the considered view that the insurance company was not at all justified in repudiating the claim.4
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company also submitted that the present case does not fall under the category of "total loss" and that the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove that the subject vehicle is not repairable. His submission is that the complainant could prove total loss of vehicle by filing evidence of expert or mechanic of garage, but he has failed to adduce the aforesaid evidence before the District Commission. Learned counsel further submitted that the surveyor of the insurance company through his report dated 16.05.2011, has assessed the net loss at Rs. 2,49,430.96/- and the complainant is entitled to the said amount only, whereas learned District Commission has awarded the amount on total loss basis. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following case laws:
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjit Singh and others reported in III (2017) CPJ 531 (NC).
(ii) Sanjib Kumar Dey and another Vs. Chabbi Dey and others reported in 2015 (4) CPR 584 (NC).
9. It would not be out of place to mention here that, as is stated above, the claim in question of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of misrepresentation and in the repudiation letter, no such ground was taken that the claim put forward by the complainant is excessive one and that it is not a case of total loss. It is well settled that if the letter of repudiation did not mention an aspect, the same could not be taken as a stand when the matter is decided. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8884-8900 of 2010; M/s Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another etc., decided on 28.07.2016, has approved the above view.
5Relevant portion of paragraph No. 12 of the above judgment is reproduced below:
"The letter of repudiation dated 20th September, 1999, which we have reproduced hereinbefore, interestingly, does not whisper a single word with regard to delay or, in fact, does not refer at all to the duration clause. What has been stated in the letter of repudiation is that the claim lodged by the complainant does not fall under the purview of transit-loss because of the subsequent investigation report. It is evincible, the insured had taken cognizance of the communication made by the appellant and nominated a surveyor to verify the loss. Once the said exercise has been undertaken, we are disposed to think that the insurer could not have been allowed to take a stand that the claim is hit by the clause pertaining to duration. In the absence of any mention in the letter of repudiation and also from the conduct of the insurer in appointing a surveyor, it can safely be concluded that the insurer had waived the right which was in its favour under the duration clause. In this regard, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has commended us to a decision of High Court of Delhi in Krishna Wanti v.
Life Insurance Corporation of Indiaˡ, wherein the High Court has taken note of the fact that if the letter of repudiation did not mention an aspect, the same could not be taken as a stand when the matter is decided.
We approve the said view."6
10. Thus, we do not find any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the insurance company and in view of the above law, are of the considered opinion that the insurance company can not travel beyond the repudiation letter and since in the present case, the insurance company has failed to prove the stand taken in the repudiation letter, by producing cogent and reliable evidence in that regard, the District Commission was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order, which does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K