Insurer closed cop’s riot-burnt scooter claim as ‘nil’, ordered to pay Rs 1.07 lakh

The order noted that perusal of the certificate issued by Banbhoolpura Police Station and filed by the complainant along with the complaint shows that the vehicles destroyed in the arson committed by rioters on February 8, 2024, including the complainant’s insured scooter, were removed from the premises of Banbhoolpura Police Station and kept in the premises of the Fire Station, Haldwani.

Insurer denied riot fire claim

The complainant owned a Suzuki Avenis 125, value of Rs 1.15 lakh, had a insured by the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd and was valid and effective from March 26, 2023, to March 25, 2028.

According to the complainant, on February 8, 2024, while she was on duty at Banbhoolpura Police Station, Haldwani, violent riots broke out. During the violence, the rioters set fire to the vehicles parked inside the police station premises, and the complainant’s scooter was also completely burnt to ashes.

The complainant repeatedly visited the branch office of the opposite parties and orally informed them about the incident, requesting settlement of her insurance claim. However, the opposite parties kept delaying and avoiding payment of the claim.

The complainant stated that she is employed in the police department and had purchased the scooter for commuting to and from her workplace. Since the scooter was completely destroyed in the incident, she has been facing considerable inconvenience.

Due to the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered severe mental agony and financial loss. Therefore, she has been compelled to file the present consumer complaint.

Complainant failed to provide required records: Insurer

The insurance company filed a written submission and contended that the complainant had instituted the present complaint by distorting and misrepresenting the facts with the intention of obtaining an undue benefit.

They submitted that the complainant failed to furnish the documents sought by the insurance company, which amounted to a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

They stated that the insurance company had repeatedly requested the complainant to submit the necessary documents for processing the claim. However, despite several reminders, the complainant failed to provide the required records. The insurance company asserted that it was not obliged to settle the claim in the absence of the requisite documents.

They stated that the insurance company had repeatedly requested the complainant to submit the necessary documents for processing the claim. However, despite several reminders, the complainant failed to provide the required records.

Vehicle inspection never specified: Order

• A certified copy of the insurance policy issued by the opposite insurance company in respect of the scooter in question, along with the tax invoice, has been placed on record along with the written statement.
• The original copies of these documents had already been filed by the complainant along with the complaint.
• A perusal of these documents reveals that the complainant’s vehicle was covered by the opposite insurance company under third-party insurance for the period March 26, 2023, to March 25, 2028, and under own-damage as well as compulsory personal accident cover for the period March 26, 2023, to March 25, 2024.
• Accordingly, on the date of the fire incident, February 8, 2024, in which the insured vehicle was completely destroyed, the insurance policy was valid, subsisting, and fully effective.
• The certified copy of the letter, sent by the surveyor to the complainant reiterating the contents of the letter, has been filed on record by the opposite insurance company along with its written statement.
• On March 21, 2024, the opposite insurance company closed the complainant’s indemnity claim by treating it as a “nil claim.”

• The letter sent by the opposite insurance company to inform the complainant that her claim had been closed reveals that the primary reason for closing the claim was the complainant’s alleged failure to produce the insured vehicle for inspection.
• However, neither the said final claim closure nor the written statement filed by the opposite insurance company specifies before whom or at which place the complainant was required to produce the insured vehicle for inspection.

Significance of ruling

This ruling reinforces that insurers cannot reject or close claims on technical grounds without clearly communicating procedural requirements to policyholders. It emphasizes that claim repudiation must be fair, reasoned, and supported by evidence, particularly where the insured loss is undisputed, thereby strengthening consumer protection against arbitrary insurance claim denials.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand helpline: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.