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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more