January 29, 2026 : District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh has held that mere suspicion about the cause of an accident, without solid evidence, cannot be used to deny a motor insurance claim. The Commission found Shriram General Insurance Company Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for repudiating a claim filed by a policyholder. The order was passed on 28 January 2026 in Harminder Pal v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (CC/278/2021).
Accident During Policy Period
The complainant, Harminder Pal, had insured his car (PB-01-B-4470) with the insurer for the period 3 September 2020 to 2 September 2021, with an Insured Declared Value of ₹4,00,000. On 15 December 2020, at about 4.30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident when the driver allegedly lost control and hit a tree. The insurer was informed on the same day, and a surveyor was appointed. The authorised repairer prepared an estimate of ₹7,30,504.85.
Despite this, the insurer repudiated the claim on 5 April 2021, stating that the “cause of loss and damages” did not match the claim form and photographs.
Insurer’s Defence Rejected
In its written statement, the insurer alleged rash and negligent driving, possible drinking and driving, and absence of an FIR. It also claimed that necessary documents were not supplied. However, the Commission found these defences unconvincing. It noted that the repudiation letter itself showed the insurer was questioning the authenticity of the accident, which had no connection with the allegation of rash driving.
The Commission also observed that although the insurer claimed it had repeatedly asked for documents such as an FIR, it failed to produce documentary proof of such requests, except for one letter dated 21 January 2021, issued more than a month after the accident.
Importantly, the Commission reiterated the settled legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., it held that bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be accepted.
The Commission observed that “mere bald averments… sans any cogent documentary evidence… cannot be believed,” and concluded that the repudiation amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Relief Granted
Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed the insurer to: Pay ₹3,75,514, being the amount assessed by the surveyor, with interest at 9% per annum from 5 April 2021 until realisation; and Pay ₹20,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The insurer has been directed to comply with the order within 60 days from receipt of the certified copy.
Case Title: Harminder Pal v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/278/2021
Decision Date: 28 January 2026
