Skip to main content

Insurance Co asked to pay Rs 4.94L to bank for customer fraud

A consumer forum here has ordered United India Insurance to pay Rs 4.94 lakhs to Thane District Central Co-operative Bank for being deficient in its services with regard to the bank's claim in a customer fraud case.

The bank, in its complaint, told the Thane District Consumer Redressel Forum (TDCRF) that between May and October 2003, some of the bank employees had misappropriated a sum of Rs 4.94 lakhs from the account of one of the customers.

The bank had immediately brought it to the notice of the insurance company and also lodged a police complaint.It had lodged a claim for the amount with United India Insurance from which it had taken insurance policy.

The insurance company, despite more than 24 reminders, slept over the claim, the bank informed the forum.

The insurance firm argued before the forum that the policy was to be honoured for limited contingencies like fire, theft, floods, etc, and not if there was a fraud in the bank.

TDCRF president Umesh Jhavalikar and member N D Kadam dismissed the insurance company's stand and stated that the bank had taken an indemnity policy from the insurance firm, which was in force at the time of fraud by its employees.

The forum noted that after receipt of the claim and documents relating to it in August 2004, it was the statutory responsibility of the insurance firm, as per section 9 of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, to appoint a surveyor within 72 hours which it had not done.

Despite three reminders till January 16, 2005, the insurance firm had not taken any action on the same and this amounts to violation of IRDA regulations, it said.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-co-asked-to-pay-rs-4-94l-to-bank-for-customer-fraud-114102200352_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