A division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had refused to grant relief under the insurance policy to the appellant.
The appellant’s truck was insured with the respondent-insurance company for the period from August 22, 2012 to August 21, 2013. The appellant had also paid a sum of ₹28,880 to the company towards premium.
On March 23-24, 2013, the insured vehicle of the appellant was stolen. A First Information Report (FIR) was immediately lodged and the appellant also informed the insurance company as well as the Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the theft of his vehicle.
The appellant also submitted all the documents sought by the insurance company, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim.
Aggrieved, the appellant moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), which disposed of the plea directing the appellant to submit duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of truck to the insurance company within a month.
The insurance company was directed to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy within a month after receiving the same.
However, RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration to the appellant on the ground that due to the report of the theft of the truck, the details regarding registration certificate on the computer was locked.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application before the insurance company along with photocopy of the certificate of registration and registration particulars, as provided by the RTO. Despite the above, the claim of the appellant was not settled.
Aggrieved, the appellant had moved the DCDRC which dismissed the complaint by observing that as the appellant had not filed the relevant documents for settlement of claim therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannot be said to be deficiency in service. The State Commission and the NCDRC also upheld the order of DCDRC.
The appellant then moved the present appeal before the apex court.
Source: Barandbench
