/2022 INSC 0403/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4071 OF 2022
Gurmel Singh     …Appellant(s)
Versus
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.  …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   final
judgment   and   order   dated   03.08.2021   passed   by   the
National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission   at
New   Delhi   in   Revision   Petition   No.   2898/2015,   by   which,
the appellant is denied the relief of settling the claim under
the   insurance   policy,   the   original   complainant   –   appellant
herein has preferred the present appeal. 
1

2. That   the   appellant   herein   –   original   complainant   was   the
registered owner of the Truck bearing No. CG­04­JC­4984.
The said vehicle was insured with the respondent herein –
insurance   company   for   the   period   from   22.08.2012   to
21.08.2013. The appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 28,880/­
to the respondent towards premium. On 23­24.03.2013 in
the   midnight,   the   said   vehicle   was   stolen.   A   FIR   was
immediately   lodged   in   the   Police   Station   Kumhari,   which
was   registered   as   FIR   No.   57/13.   On   the   same   day,   the
complainant also informed the insurance company as well
as   the   Regional   Transport   Office   (RTO)   regarding   the   theft
of the Truck. That after giving information regarding theft,
the   appellant   submitted   all   the   documents   sought   by   the
insurance   company,   but   the   insurance   company   failed   to
settle   the   claim.   That   being   aggrieved   by   the   delay   in
settling   the   claim,   the   appellant   filed   the   consumer
complaint   No.   200/2013   before   the   District   Consumer
Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Durg,   Chhattisgarh.   The
District   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission
disposed of the said complaint vide order dated 03.12.2013
with  the   direction   that   the   appellant   herein   would   furnish
2

duplicate   certified   copy   of   the   certificate   of   registration   of
Truck to the  insurance company  within a month and  that
the insurance company within a month after  receiving  the
same   would   settle   the   claim   as   per   the   terms   and
conditions of the insurance policy. It is the case on behalf
of the appellant that in compliance of the order passed by
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the
appellant   submitted   an   application   before   the   RTO   for
obtaining   duplicate   certified   copy   of   the   certificate   of
registration of the Truck in question. However, RTO denied
to   issue   duplicate   certified   copy   of   the   certificate   of
registration   on   the   ground   that   due   to   the   report   of   the
theft   of   the   Truck,   the   details   regarding   registration
certificate on the computer has been locked. Therefore, the
RTO   refused   to   issue   the   duplicate   certified   copy   of   the
certificate   of   registration   of   the   Truck.   Thereafter,   the
appellant   –   original   complainant   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 was not
settled and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh consumer
3

complaint   bearing   No.   179/2014   before   the   District
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Durg,
Chhattisgarh. That the said District Commission vide order
dated   23.01.2015   dismissed   the   said   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   order   passed   by   the   District   Commission   has
been confirmed by the State Commission and thereafter, by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by
the impugned judgment and order.   
3. We   have   heard   Shri   Anand   Shankar   Jha,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   Mrs.   Hetu   Arora
Sethi,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondent – insurance company. 
4. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   vehicle   belonging   to   the
appellant   was   insured   with   the   respondent   –   insurance
company. It is also not in dispute that the same was valid
for the period between 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. It is also
not in dispute that the appellant herein paid a sum of Rs.
28,880/­ to the respondent towards premium. It is also not
4

in   dispute   that   the   insured   vehicle   was  stolen   for   which  a
FIR   has   been   registered   in   the   Police   Station   Kumhari   on
the very day  on which the vehicle was stolen. Immediately
on   the   very   same   day,   the   appellant   informed   the
insurance   company   as   well   as   RTO   regarding   the   theft   of
the   Truck.   The   appellant   also   produced   the   photocopy   of
the   certificate   of   registration   and   the   registration
particulars as provided by the RTO. However, the appellant
could   not   produce   either   the   original   certificate   of
registration   or   the   duplicate   certified   copy   of   certificate   of
registration   of   the   Truck.   When   the   appellant   applied   for
the duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration,
the RTO denied to issue the duplicate certified copy on the
ground that in view of information/report regarding theft of
the   vehicle,   which   has   been   registered   with   the   RTO,   the
details   regarding   registration   certificate   on   the   computer
has been locked. The insurance claim has not been settled
mainly on the ground that the appellant has not produced
either   the   original   certificate   of   registration   or   even   the
duplicate   certified   copy   of   certificate   of   registration   issued
by the RTO. However, the appellant did produce photocopy
5

of   certificate   of   registration   and   other   registration
particulars   as   provided   by   the   RTO.   Even,   at   the   time   of
taking the insurance policy  and getting  the insurance, the
insurance   company   must   have   received   the   copy   of   the
certificate of registration. Therefore, the appellant had tried
his   best   to   get   the   duplicate   certified   copy   of   certificate   of
registration of the Truck. However, because of the report of
theft   of   the   Truck,   the   details   of   registration   on   the
computer   have   been   locked   and   the   RTO   has   refused   to
issue the duplicate certified copy of registration. Therefore,
in   the   facts   and   circumstance   of   the   case,   when   the
appellant   had   produced   the   photocopy   of   certificate   of
registration and the registration particulars as provided by
the RTO, solely on the ground that the original certificate of
registration  (which  has  been  stolen)   is  not  produced,  non­
settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service.
Therefore,   the   appellant   has   been   wrongly   denied   the
insurance claim. 
4.1 In   the   present   case,   the   insurance   company   has   become
too   technical   while   settling   the   claim   and   has   acted
arbitrarily.   The   appellant   has   been   asked   to   furnish   the
6

documents which were beyond the control of the appellant
to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance
on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck
was   stolen,   the   insurance   company   ought   not   to   have
become   too   technical   and   ought   not   to   have   refused   to
settle   the   claim   on   non­submission   of   the   duplicate
certified   copy   of   certificate   of   registration,   which   the
appellant   could   not   produce   due   to   the   circumstances
beyond   his   control.   In   many   cases,   it   is   found   that   the
insurance   companies   are   refusing   the   claim   on   flimsy
grounds   and/or   technical   grounds.   While   settling   the
claims, the insurance company should not be too technical
and   ask   for   the   documents,   which   the   insured   is   not   in   a
position   to   produce   due   to   circumstances   beyond   his
control. 
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Durg, Chhattisgarh, dismissing the complaint
filed   by   the   appellant   and   the   orders   passed   by   the   State
Commission   and   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission,   confirming   the   same   deserve   to   be   set   aside
7

and   are   hereby   set   aside.   The   original   complaint   being
Consumer Complaint No. 179/2014 filed before the District
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Durg,
Chhattisgarh,   is   hereby   allowed.   The   appellant   is   entitled
to   the   insurance   amount   of   Rs.   12   lakhs   along   with
interest @ 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim.
The respondent  – insurance  company   is also  saddled with
the liability to pay the litigation cost, which is quantified at
Rs.   25,000/­   to   be   paid   to   the   appellant   herein.   The
aforesaid   amount   is   to   be   paid   by   the   insurance   company
to   the  appellant   within   a  period   of   four   weeks   from   today.
The present appeal is accordingly allowed.   
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
May 20, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
8