Skip to main content

Interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft to the insurance co. by the complainant

In CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs TANUSREE MONDAL, revision petition was filed by insurer against order of the State Forum.

In this matter, the respondent–complainant had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- for her vehicle (Tata Sumo) from the revisionists – opposite party – insurance co., which was in force till 08.08.2008.  Premium of Rs.6,435/- has been paidThe complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 29.06.2008. F.I.R was lodged by the complainant and the contention of insurance co. was that the complainant intimated about the theft of vehicle after expiry of 14 days and as such she had violated the conditions of the insurance policy.

The contention of the complainant was that there was no delay in informing the insurance co. about the theft as she intimated the insurance co. on 01.07.2008 over phone but she was advised to report the theft in writing with a copy of the FIR. The complainant got the copy of the FIR on 10.07.2008, and immediately thereafter, on 11.07.2008, she intimated the insurance co. by registered post, as such there was no intentional delay.

The State Forum found that on 11-07-2008 the O.P.no. 2 was informed through registered post which was admittedly received on 14-07-2008 and agreeing with the District Forum awarded compensation.

The National Forum however agreeing with the lower forums found that State and District Forum have differed on the compensation. 

The National Forum found that there was protracted correspondence between the complainant and the insurance co. including repeated requests etc. by the complainant from the date of intimation of theft by registered post i.e. from 11.07.2008 till the date of filing of consumer complaint in the District Forum i.e. on 05.04.2013, but her claim was not settled. The complainant had a valid policy, she had duly paid the premium, she lodged an F.I.R., she intimated the insurance co., she kept on corresponding and requesting, for a period of about 4 years and 9 months, and was (then) left with no option but to seek remedy under law / approach the consumer forum (in this case). 

The National Forum held that the insurance co. should have been prompt and dutiful in settling the claim within a reasonable period, that is, within a period that appears reasonable per se, and which a reasonable man will not agitate. We do not want to endorse in any manner a proposition that the interest will be paid only (and only) when a consumer (as a last resort in forced duress) approaches the consumer fora. The principle that is correct, and that we want to convey, is that the insurance co. was required to be and should have been prompt and dutiful in settling a bonafide claim, and should in no way nurture any (mis)notion that it can sit over a claim till the consumer in forced duress seeks remedy in the consumer fora. Therefore, it is just, appropriate and necessary that the interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft by the complainant to the insurance co. i.e. from 11.07.2008.

We find the State Commission’s observation erroneous that awarding compensation as well as interest is “not tenable under the law”. Interest is to offset the delay in making the due payment promptly and dutifully at the due time. Compensation is for the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness,  the other, compensation, is for the loss and injury, the harassment and difficulty, the uncertainty and helplessness. The protracted correspondence and requests, for about 4 years and 9 months, the forced duress to approach the consumer fora, the protracted litigation in one, two, and now three, consumer fora, definitely qualify for just, appropriate and equitable compensation, commensurate with the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness. We accordingly find the award of compensation made by the District Forum to be just, equitable, appropriate, reasonable, lawful.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more