Skip to main content

No Insurance for Car Carelessly Driven in Waterlogged Area

A jewellery firm was denied insurance claim for its damaged car by a consumer forum which said the vehicle was carelessly driven in heavily waterlogged area without considering the consequences.

West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Bimla Makin, rejected the plea of Gujranwala Jewellers seeking Rs 5,12,357 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, with which the car was insured, for the damaged vehicle.

"As the complainant's car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged underbridge carelessly and without (any) regard to the consequences that may follow in driving through heavily waterlogged underbridge...

"The Opposition Party (company) cannot be held liable for the loss or damage caused to vehicle due to own act of complainant in the present case. Hence, the company rightly rejected the claim of the complainant," the forum said.

The forum also said that the noise emanating from the engine was indicative of the additional wear and tear caused to the engine due to own act of complainant.

In the order, it also noted that the complainant had informed the insurance firm about the damage to the car after a delay of more than a week.

The complainant had approached the forum submitting that in November 2008, it had purchased the car which was insured with the insurance company.

Due to heavy rains in Delhi on July 27, 2009, the car which was parked at Wazirpur underbridge submerged under accumulated rain water and resulted in damage to the engine of vehicle, generating abnormal noise, the complaint said.

Gujranwala Jewellers communicated about the damage to the insurance company which repudiated the claim. The complainant then approached the forum seeking direction to the company to pay Rs 2,57,357 as claim and a compensation of Rs two lakh and cost of litigation of Rs 55,000.

The insurance firm, however, told the forum that the car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged area carelessly without considering consequences. It added that the complainant had committed breach of policy.

It also said that it was not intimated immediately as per policy condition and the complainant did not provide any estimate of repair.

Article referred: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/No-Insurance-for-Car-Carelessly-Driven-in-Waterlogged-Area/852946

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