Skip to main content

Insurance firm told to pay Rs. 50K for rejecting vehicle theft claim

District consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed an insurance company to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to a Nayagoan resident for deficient services, after her claim for a stolen vehicle was denied.

Disposing of a complaint filed by Saleena Rani, a resident of Naya Gaon, district SAS Nagar, the consumer forum also directed United India Insurance Company Limited, to pay Rs. 7,000 as cost of litigation.

The insurance company has also been ordered to pay Rs. 4.99 lakh to Tata Motors Finance Limited as the vehicle was under hypothecation with it.

The consumer forum presided over by Rajan Dewan on July 17, held the insurance company deficient in services and guilty of unfair trade practices for rejecting the claim on the grounds that the vehicle was not registered within one month of purchase.

The consumer forum’s order said: “Even if vehicle was not registered within the prescribed period, the insurance company could not have repudiated theclaim. Otherwise also, there was no nexus between the theft of the vehicle and non-holding of a valid registration certificate. The registration of the vehicle and the incident of theft, were two absolutely different matters having no link what so ever... thus by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant the insurance company certainly committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”

THE THEFT

In her representation, Rani had submitted that on May 5, 2012, her Indigo ECS (LX TC 111) car was stolen from outside a guest house in Delhi. A case in this regard was also registered.

She claimed to have lodged a claim for the stolen vehicle which was repudiated by the insurance company, in spite of all relevant documents being supplied to the insurance company.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/insurance-firm-told-to-pay-50k-for-rejecting-vehicle-theft-claim/article1-1247020.aspx

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

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even