Holding that an insurer cannot evade liability on a technical discrepancy after issuing a policy and accepting premium, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali, has directed SBI General Insurance to pay more than ₹6 lakh to a Kharar-based fuel station owner whose accident claim for an oil tanker was rejected. The complaint was filed by M/s Jai Kissan Filling Station, Kharar, which operates an Indian Oil retail outlet and owns an oil tanker used for transporting petroleum products. According to the complaint, the insured tanker (PB65BE8182) met with an accident near Sangrur on November 18, 2024, resulting in repair expenses of more than ₹8.28 lakh.
SBI General, however, repudiated the claim on December 26, 2024, stating that the vehicle was an oil tanker carrying hazardous goods, while the online proposal form allegedly described it as a vehicle carrying non-hazardous goods. The insurer argued that this amounted to concealment and misrepresentation of material facts. In its defence, SBI General contended that the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and therefore did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
The company further argued that the complainant had selected the “non-hazardous goods” category while purchasing the policy online and had never sought correction of the vehicle classification despite noticing that the policy described the body type as a “box truck”.
The commission rejected these arguments. It held that an insurance policy is a contract of indemnity intended to protect against loss and that availing such insurance services does not deprive a business entity of consumer status. The commission observed that the insured vehicle was admittedly an oil tanker licensed for transportation of petroleum products and that its registration documents clearly reflected its nature and usage. It noted that SBI General had accepted the premium, issued the policy and processed the claim by appointing a surveyor and investigator before repudiating it.
The commission further held that the insurer failed to establish deliberate concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation by the complainant. It found the repudiation arbitrary and concluded that the insurer appeared to be relying on a technical discrepancy to avoid liability. While the complainant sought reimbursement of the entire repair bill of ₹8.28 lakh, the commission relied on the insurer’s own surveyor’s assessment, which fixed the insurer’s liability at ₹6,07,213.39. The commission directed SBI General to pay ₹6,07,213.39 along with 6% annual interest from December 26, 2024, the date of repudiation, until payment. It also awarded ₹30,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
{{/usCountry}}The commission further held that the insurer failed to establish deliberate concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation by the complainant. It found the repudiation arbitrary and concluded that the insurer appeared to be relying on a technical discrepancy to avoid liability. While the complainant sought reimbursement of the entire repair bill of ₹8.28 lakh, the commission relied on the insurer’s own surveyor’s assessment, which fixed the insurer’s liability at ₹6,07,213.39. The commission directed SBI General to pay ₹6,07,213.39 along with 6% annual interest from December 26, 2024, the date of repudiation, until payment. It also awarded ₹30,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
{{/usCountry}}The order was passed by the consumer commission headed by president SK Aggarwal along with members Paramjeet Kaur and Lt Col Jasbir Singh Bath.