Anantapur District Commission Holds Shriram General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Smt. M. Sreelatha (President), Kum. D. Grace Mary (Member) and Sir B. Gopinath (Member) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company Limited' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to settle a valid claim amount assessed under IRDA approved survey findings. Brief Facts: The Complainant got...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Smt. M. Sreelatha (President), Kum. D. Grace Mary (Member) and Sir B. Gopinath (Member) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company Limited' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to settle a valid claim amount assessed under IRDA approved survey findings.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant got his van insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Insurance Company”) for a year. During the subsistence of the policy, the van was dashed against a tollage wall due to the negligence of the Complainant's driver. The Complainant promptly informed the Insurance Company and made a claim application to recover the damage caused to the van. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The Complainant paid Rs. 3,50,000/- on his own for repairing the van. Despite several reminders, the Insurance Company refused to honour the amount. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”).
The Insurance Company contended that a claim was repudiated because the van was not being used with a valid permit to ply. This constituted a clear violation of the policy's T&C and the Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988. Further, it contended that the Complainant made up a story to gain an undue advantage from the Insurance Company. The Complainant failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the van was dashed against a tollage wall. Further, he also failed to inform the police and took the van to a private mechanic, instead of an authorized showroom for repairs.
Observations of the Commission:
The District Commission observed that the Insurance Company had appointed an IRDA-approved surveyor to assess the van's damage. The aforementioned Surveyor estimated the damage amount of Rs. 56,485/-. This indicated that the Insurance Company had knowledge of the said accident and agreed to appoint a surveyor. This conduct contradicted its claim that the van was not damaged in the accident on the informed spot/area. According to the District Commission, the van was clearly damaged, and the Insurance Company failed to provide written intimation confirming its acceptance of the IRDA-approved survey findings and its commitment to pay Rs 56,485/-. This constituted a deficiency in service.
It was further observed that the Complainant failed to present the authenticated bill for the repairs. He also fabricated the bill and approached an unauthorized mechanic instead of an authorized showroom/service centre. Thus, it was held that the claimed amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- cannot be reimbursed. Conclusively, the District Commission directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 56,485/- as repair charges with 6% interest, Rs, 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- for legal costs.
Case Title: Chinthapanti Siva Sankar Reddy vs The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: C.C. No. 34/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Sri A.V. Siva Reddy and Sri A. Dasthagiri Basha
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri T. Ramakrishna
Date of Pronouncement: 23rd November 2024