SREEDHAR RAJU S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.S.Sriranga, learned counsel for the respondent. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority' for short) to direct respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to settle the claim of the petitioner on total loss basis at Rs.10 Lakhs being Insured' Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle less Rs.20,000/- value in terms of GR-8 of India Motor Tariff, 2002 in view of the order passed by it dated 25.07.2016.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had obtained a package insurance policy from respondent Nos.3 to 5, which was valid for a period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 for an IDV of Rs.10,00,000/- for a premium of Rs.21,454/-. Unfortunately, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 29.05.2016. The aforesaid fact was reported to the insurance company on 30.05.2016 vide email, which was registered as a claim. On instructions of the insurance company, the vehicle was shifted to the authorized garage for loss estimation. The petitioner on 22.08.2016 was informed by the insurance company that his claim is admitted on total loss basis but the amount payable to the petitioner would be Rs.8,20,639/- instead of Rs.10 Lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that under duress he gave consent on 24.08.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner by a communication dated 27.08.2016, was informed that his claim had been approved on total loss basis for an amount of Rs.8,20,639/-. It is the case of the petitioner that under regulation 15(x) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder's Interest) Regulations 2017, the insurance company is under an obligation to pay the entire amount. The petitioner submitted a representation to the insurance company. However, the representation of the petitioner failed to evoke any response. Thereupon, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 14(2)(a)(b) of the IRDA Act, 1999 read with Regulation 23(a), 23(e), 23(f), 26 and 27 of the IRDA (Registration of Indian Insurance Companies) Regulation, 2000 read with Sections 3(4)(d) of the Insurance Act, 1938 by filing a complaint on 16.03.2018. However, no action was taken on the complaint submitted by the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 read with Section 14(2)(b) of the IRDA Act, 1999 the authority has the power to adjudicate the claim. However, the authority has failed to exercise its statutory duty and powers of the authority have to be understood in the light of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 14(2)(b) of the IRDA Act, 1999. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decision of High Court of Delhi dated 10.02.2010 in 'NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS'. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also referred to orders passed by the authority in several cases where the complaints have been entertained and the orders have been passed.