Page 26 - Insurance Times September 2015 SAMPLE

of the investigator who submitted the report to the
Insurance Company and on the basis of which the Insurance
Company acted upon. Complainant categorically denied
that the vehicle was given on hire and reward basis. It was
given to the acquaintance Mr. Shamjibhai who had to visit
Dhule for his personal work.
The vehicle was stolen when the driver left the vehicle while the financier did not.
Shanjibhai was present nearby the vehicle for answering
natures call and on return the driver found the vehicle
missing. On the next day the a FIR was lodged about the
theft of the vehicle at Shirpur Taluka police station.
We find that Insurance Company did not adduce any
evidence to justify their repudiation on the ground that the
vehicle was used on hire and reward basis. In absence of
any evidence of the investigator, such assumption cannot
be made.
Deficiency in the Services of Insurers:
Insurance Companies prefer to avoid settling claims. If one
cannot be rejected outright, the next best alternative is to
delay it under various pretexts. This usually happens in the
case of claims for stolen motor vehicle, where the insurance
company avoids payment of the claim on the ground that
it is awaiting the outcome of a police investigation or a
criminal case regarding the theft. In one case Mr. Rajendra
Kumar Gupta purchased a truck on credit from Shriram
Transport Finance Company. The truck was insured with
ICICI Lombard General Insurance, since June 7, 2007, when
it was purchased, till it was stolen on February 12, 2009.
22 The Insurance Times, September 2015
Copyright@ The Insurance Times. 09883398055 / 09883380339
A police complaint was lodged and an insurance claim
preferred. The police could not trace the truck. Yet, the
insurance company refused to pay on the ground that a
criminal case was pending and the outcome was awaited.
Gupta filed a consumer complaint before the Lakhimpur
Kheri District Forum against the insurer as well as against
the financier. ICICI Lombard contested the complaint but
Gupta alleged deficiency in the service of the insurance
company by failing to settle his claim within 90 days.
Consequently, he could not discharge the loan and had to
continue to pay interest to the finance company. The Forum
elaborately considered the evidence on record. It observed the
only mandatory requirement for the insurance company to
settle the claim was the evidence that theft had taken place.
Though the theft of the vehicle and its coverage under the
policy were not in dispute, the insurance company had not
even bothered to appoint a surveyor. The only excuse put
forth was that the claim had been kept pending on the off
chance that the vehicle might be recovered. Holding this
delay a deficiency in service, the Forum directed the insurer
to settle the claim.
ICICI Lombard challenged this order in an appeal before the
Uttar Pradesh State Commission. As the appeal was not
filed within the limitation period of 30 days and no
satisfactory reason was given for the delay in filing the
appeal, the State Commission dismissed it. The insurer filed
a revision petition before the National Commission, claiming
the delay of three months ought to have been condoned
and the appeal decided on merits.
Keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the
case of Anshul Agarwal v/s New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority, the National Commission held that if belated appeals
are entertained, it would defeat the objective of the
Consumer Protection Act to provide expeditious adjudication
of consumer disputes. Accordingly, it held the dismissal of the
appeal as being time-barred was justified. Nevertheless, the
National Commission also examined the merits of the dispute.
It observed that the insurance company's contention that the
truck might be traced and recovered in the future was merely
a theoretical possibility.
Simply because the police investigation showed the vehicle
had been sold and some money had been recovered from