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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more