Mere Delay in Intimating Insurer of Vehicle Theft No Ground For Denying Claim, Says SC

The Supreme Court on Friday held that an insurance company cannot reject a claim on the basis that there was a delay in communicating the theft of a vehicle to it. The significant verdict came on an appeal of a company whose insured truck was robbed on 4 November 2007 and the police, acting on the FIR which was lodged next day, arrested the accused but could not recover the insured vehicle.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said: "When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned court, and 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 a delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft."
The bench said the accused were also arrested and charge sheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out. "Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the insurance company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the insurance company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine," it noted. 
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd repudiated the claim on the ground that it was informed about the theft of the Tata Aiwa truck belatedly and won the case at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The NCDRC, in 2016, had set aside the findings of the District Consumer Forum and the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Commission holding that the insurance firm rightly repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi set aside the NCDRC judgement and held that the mere delay in intimating the insurer was not fatal to the claim when an FIR had been registered promptly.
The bench said: "In that view of the matter, the court is of the opinion that the NCDRC should not have set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission by holding that the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurance company was justified. The impugned order being erroneous and against the settled position of law, deserves to be set aside, and is set aside, accordingly." 
The insurance company disowned the liability on the claim, saying there was a breach of condition number one of the policy, which mandated immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss or damage. 
The company said the theft was intimated to it after the lapse of more than five months. Rejecting this contention of the insurance company, the top court said in the instant case also, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the complainant. 
The district consumer awarded Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation expenses to the complainant. This order was challenged by the insurance company in the state commission, which dismissed its appeal.
Later the insurance company moved the NCDRC, which ruled in its favour. Jaina Construction Company moved the top court challenging the NCDRC order.



To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

Changes in Our Business Model
25th Sept 2020
Greetings from Moneylife Advisory Services
Between financial years 2019-21, SEBI has come up with extensive changes to investor advisor regulations. On Sep 23, 2020, SEBI had issued new additional guidelines. This comes just two months after extensive changes announced in July 2020. Earlier, in December 2019 there was an ad hoc circular
As a result of these changes, IAs, cannot accept fees through credit cards, will have to sign a 26-clause investor agreement, have to maintain physical record written & signed by client, telephone recording, emails, SMS messages and any other legally verifiable record for five years. IAs were already asked to record the suitability and rationale for every piece of advice given, sign them and store them for five years.
While these extensive and frequent changes, designed to strengthen the conduct of IAs are well-meaning, these have sharply increased compliance efforts and cost. We, being online advisors, find many of changes harder to implement, compared to advisors working in the physical space. We will have to have an army of advisors, administrative and tech staff to be compliant. If we do this, we will have to divert money to these areas and the cost of our service will double. We want to remain the least-cost service in the market to benefit more and more people. In the circumstances, we are forced to change our business model from “advisory” to “research”. This will mean the following:
What remains the same:
  • Recommendations on insurance, investment and Lion stocks, will continue as a part of the MAS premium subscription. Our strength has always been research and this will remain available to you through our recommendations.
  • The magazine and all textual content will remain as part of the service
  • We will have to suspend the restructuring tool.
What changes:
  • The interactions in Ask / Handholding will offer investment advice but not specific to your situation. It will offer information on investment products and also clarify your doubts about various financial products. It will be a forum for information, not for advice. This will be implemented with immediate effect and our guidelines in Ask, reflect this now.
Over the next few weeks our site and our communication to you will reflect these and other additional changes.
We feel this will not affect you much in terms of what really matters in investing: knowing what to buy and when to buy. This is our edge and it will still be available to you.
Debashis Basu