Skip to main content

Insurance firm cannot pay less than the insured value - Consumer Forum

A consumer forum here has asked an insurance company to pay nearly Rs four lakh as claim to a man, whose insured car was stolen, saying it has no authority to assess the value of the vehicle at a lower side after accepting premium at a higher value.

The West Delhi District Consumer Forum, presided over by Bimla Makin asked United India Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs3,98,950 to Delhi resident Sanjay Chawla whose car was insured with it. The firm had offered Rs 2.24 lakh after the vehicle's theft instead of Rs 3,99,950, the amount it had insured it for.

The forum also awarded a compensation of Rs 30,000 to the man for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him.

The forum rejected the submission of the company that it had earlier valued the vehicle on much higher side on the basis of concealed and false facts provided by the client.

It said once the insurance firm has accepted premium on a particular Insured Declared Value (IDV) after assessing its value itself, then at the time of making the payment it has no authority to assess the value on a lower side.

"If the insurance company is valuing the vehicle on a higher side at the time of issuing the policy and accepting the premium accordingly, it does not lie in its mouth at the time of paying the claim that the vehicle was valued on a higher side....

"Once the insurance company has accepted the premium on a particular IDV after assessing its value itself then at the time of making the payment it has no authority to assess the value on a lower side," the forum, also comprising its members Urmila Gupta and Smita Shankar, said.

In his complaint, Chawla told the forum that he got his Chevrolet Tavera car insured with the firm but the vehicle got stolen in 2012.

The company approved Rs 2.24 lakh as IDV in full and final settlement of his claim, however, the complainant refused to accept it saying the car was insured for IDV of Rs 3,99,950 and for which insurance premium was duly charged by it, he said.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-asked-to-pay-nearly-rs-four-lakh-as-claim-114052300974_1.html

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