Skip to main content

Insurance company told to shell out Rs 13 lakh for refusing claim

 A district consumer forum on June 19 directed an insurance company to pay a local resident his claimed amount of Rs 12,53,335 and a legal cost of Rs50,000 for repudiating an insurance claim. The New India Assurance Company had refused the claim amount on grounds that the driver of the insured vehicle, involved in accident, had a fake driving licence.

According to the case, Sarabjit Singh had got his vehicle insured with the company, which was valid from February 28, 2013 to February 27, 2014. In an accident near Ranchi in March 24, 2013, the vehicle got completely smashed. Following this, Singh had immediately informed the insurance company officials.

According to Singh, the company had carried out a spot-survey of the vehicle, and following the advice of their examiner, he had the vehicle transported to Mohali by spending more than Rs 50,000 as carriage charge. After this, Singh had submitted relevant documents along with an estimated claim of Rs 12,53,335 and his driving licence to the insurance company. However, the insurance company had refused the claim stating the licence of the driver was fake.

In the forum, Singh successfully proved that his licence was not fake and that he had applied for renewal of licence. Deciding the case in favour of Singh, the court observed, "Barely non-deposit of licence fee cannot make the driving licence of the driver invalid. The driver has made the proper fee against receipt. Therefore, this ground of fake licence for repudiating the claim of the complainant does not hold." 

The court directed the company to pay Rs 12,53,335, the insured cost of the vehicle at 9% interest from the date of refutation of the letter. Besides this, it also ordered the company to pay Rs 50,000 towards the cost of lawsuit and as compensation for psychological harassment. 

The court judgment had come on June 19.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Insurance-company-told-to-shell-out-Rs-13-lakh/articleshow/37105421.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil