17 hours ago
Nat'l Insurance Co wins appeal in car robbery claim
Panchkula: The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Panchkula) has overturned a previous district court ruling that had directed National Insurance Company Ltd.
to pay Rs 3.17 lakh to a complainant whose insured vehicle was allegedly stolen. In its order pronounced on June 13, the Commission allowed the insurer's appeal while dismissing a cross-appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhanced compensation.
The case involved Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sector 32, Kurukshetra, who claimed that his car (No. HR-26U-0018), insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012.
According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, Rs 9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers.
Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR (no. 279) under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34. However, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them.
The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision.
In its judgment, the state commission held that Mahipal's conduct cast serious doubts on his claim. It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim.
Moreover, the commission highlighted Mahipal's contradictory conduct during criminal proceedings. Though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015.
This clearly indicates the complainant had not only failed to cooperate with the insurer's investigation, as mandated by the policy, but also actively undermined the prosecution, as observed by the Commission.
Insurance is a contract, and its terms are binding. Breach of cooperation and unexplained delay are fatal to the claim.
The Commission, therefore, allowed the insurer's first appeal (no. 355 of 2018) and set aside the district court's order dated Jan 17, 2018. In consequence, Mahipal Singh Rana's cross-appeal (F.A. no. 879 of 2018) seeking additional compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, and interest was also dismissed.
The Commission also ordered that the statutory deposit of ₹25,000 made by National Insurance at the time of filing the appeal be refunded, subject to verification.
This ruling highlights the importance of timely reporting and full cooperation in insurance claim processes and is expected to serve as a precedent in similar cases of delayed intimation and alleged claimant misconduct.
BOX
UNRAVELLING THE CASE
Who is the owner of the car? Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sec 32, Kurukshetra
What was his claim? He claimed that his car, insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, ₹9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34
Why did the insurer reject his claim? The insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision
What discrepancies did the state consumer forum find? It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Besides, though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015
Panchkula: The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Panchkula) has overturned a previous district court ruling that had directed National Insurance Company Ltd.
to pay Rs 3.17 lakh to a complainant whose insured vehicle was allegedly stolen. In its order pronounced on June 13, the Commission allowed the insurer's appeal while dismissing a cross-appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhanced compensation.
The case involved Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sector 32, Kurukshetra, who claimed that his car (No. HR-26U-0018), insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012.
According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, Rs 9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers.
Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR (no. 279) under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34. However, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them.
The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision.
In its judgment, the state commission held that Mahipal's conduct cast serious doubts on his claim. It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim.
Moreover, the commission highlighted Mahipal's contradictory conduct during criminal proceedings. Though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015.
This clearly indicates the complainant had not only failed to cooperate with the insurer's investigation, as mandated by the policy, but also actively undermined the prosecution, as observed by the Commission.
Insurance is a contract, and its terms are binding. Breach of cooperation and unexplained delay are fatal to the claim.
The Commission, therefore, allowed the insurer's first appeal (no. 355 of 2018) and set aside the district court's order dated Jan 17, 2018. In consequence, Mahipal Singh Rana's cross-appeal (F.A. no. 879 of 2018) seeking additional compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, and interest was also dismissed.
The Commission also ordered that the statutory deposit of ₹25,000 made by National Insurance at the time of filing the appeal be refunded, subject to verification.
This ruling highlights the importance of timely reporting and full cooperation in insurance claim processes and is expected to serve as a precedent in similar cases of delayed intimation and alleged claimant misconduct.
BOX
UNRAVELLING THE CASE
Who is the owner of the car? Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sec 32, Kurukshetra
What was his claim? He claimed that his car, insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, ₹9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34
Why did the insurer reject his claim? The insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision
What discrepancies did the state consumer forum find? It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Besides, though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015
