Himachal Pradesh State Commission Holds Shriram General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Claim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company' liable for repudiating a personal accidental claim based on the fact that the insured owner was not himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was held that the policy insured the deceased owner and he was...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company' liable for repudiating a personal accidental claim based on the fact that the insured owner was not himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was held that the policy insured the deceased owner and he was well within his rights to appoint another person as the driver.
Brief Facts:
Sh. Ramesh (“Deceased”) owned a vehicle. The vehicle was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”). The Deceased also had personal accidental coverage with the Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle was involved in an accident, which led to the demise of the Deceased. The Complainants, being legal heirs of the Deceased, filed a claim with the Insurance Company. Initially, a surveyor was appointed to assess the claim. However, later, the Insurance Company repudiated it. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”).
In response, the Insurance Company contended that upon receiving intimation about the loss, the surveyor assessed the damage at Rs. 55,250/- on a repair basis. However, it was found that four persons, including the driver, were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident, which violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to disburse the insurance amount in favour of the Complainants. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Commission, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”).
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission noted that at the time of the accident, four persons were present in the vehicle. The Deceased, who owned the vehicle, did not possess a valid driving license and that is why someone else was driving the vehicle. He was within his rights to appoint a driver for the vehicle if he himself did not know how to drive. It was further noted that the insurance policy provided personal accidental cover to the Deceased as the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the repudiation based on the reason that the insured Deceased was not driving the vehicle was unjustified.
It was further noted that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim based on the fact that 3+1 persons were travelling in the vehicle, violating the seating capacity of 2+1 as per the insurance policy. However, this ground for repudiation was not justified, as the presence of an extra passenger did not cause the accident. The State Commission perused the FIR, which indicated that the accident occurred due to the driver's high speed, not overloading.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed and it was directed to pay Rs. 2 Lakh to the Complainants as the amount for the personal accidental claim.
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Rateshwari Devi and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 13/2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Jagdish Thakur
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr Yashveer Chauhan vice Mr Manoj Thakur
Date of Order: 05.07.2024