Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 23 September, 2013
"of late, it has been noticed that there has been a tendency on
the part of the insurance company to repudiate the claim lodged
by the insured on one pretext or the other. Courts on a no. of
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 11
FA NO./555/2015 D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MR. VINOD
occasions have impressed upon the officers who deal claims to
act in insurance contract. a manner with the passgage of claims
to act in a manner which advances the purpose of the insurance
contract. It has been impressed upon these officers to act in the
right perspective in order to settle the genuine claims of the
consumers. Coming to the facts of the present complaint, it
appears to us that the officers of the insurance company were
inclined not to compensate the insured fully for the loss and in
the result earn some gain for the insurance company. The
mindset of the officers dealing with the passage of this claim is
reflected from the written statement wherein it has been stated
that the insurance company was not bound to indemnify the loss
of the insured on the IDV but was liable to pay the acutals loss
as per market value of the car in 2009. In para 2 of the reply on
merits, the insurance company has stated that even though the
value of the insured vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs.
2,20,000/- , the value of the vehicle in the year 2009 was not the
same as it was at the time of entering into the insurance contract
in the year 2008. It is also alleged in the written statement that
the complainant had not maintained the vehicle properly as a
result of which it had caught fire and was completely burnt. It is,
therefore, clear that the insurance company did not want to
compensate the insured on the Insured declared Value. They
rather were of the opinion, that since the market value of the
insured vehicle had depreciated, the insured should be
compensated at a lesser amount. This amounts to an unfair trade
practice on the part of the insurance company. The value of the
insured vehicle had been assessed as Rs. 2,20,000/- at the time
of entering into the insurance contract on which the required
premium was paid by the complainant. Having accepted
premium at the above rate, it did not lay in the mouth of the
insurance company to say that the compensation has to be given
at a lesser rate. The complainant was , therefore, justified in not
consenting to the claim which was being offered in cash or the
replacement of the vehicle.