Skip to main content

License not necessary in theft cases - Consumer Forum

Venkat Rathnam P, a resident of Indira Street, Subbaiahnapalya, Bangalore, had parked his vehicle (KA-03-HK-6835) in front of Aishwarya Hair Dressers near Patel Public School, 80 Feet Road, Banaswadi at 7.30am on November 21, 2012. When he came out of the shop, he found his vehicle missing and immediately filed a complaint at the nearest police station.

As the vehicle was insured with National Insurance, Venkat approached it to claim insurance. His policy (35100731126201121107) was valid from July 25, 2012 to July 24, 2013. As the theft happened in this covered period, the complainant was entitled to claim the insurance amount of Rs 33,603. The National Insurance official asked him to furnish the relevant police documents and the original vehicle registration certificate.

Venkat submitted all the original documents and vehicle keys along with the FIR, chargesheet and claim petition to the insurance company officials. "Instead of settling the claim, the insurance company issued a letter on May 28, 2013, stating the claim has been repudiated on the ground of not possessing a driving licence at the time of theft," he said in his petition to the consumer forum.

The forum concluded the company failed to settle the claim which could be considered deficiency in service.

The company said Venkat did not possess his driving licence at the time of theft and therefore, his claim couldn't be settled as Venkat had violated the insurance policy condition by riding the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Hence, compensation was ruled out.

The consumer forum held the policy entails any vehicle owner to possess a valid licence at the time of accident, if any, but this was a case of theft. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the consumer court said in case of a vehicle theft, "breach of condition is not germane and repudiating the claim without any justifiable cause in theft cases is nothing but deficiency in service".

The company was directed to settle the claim for a sum of Rs 33,603 along with an interest at 9% per annum from June 1, 2013, till the date of realization. It was also asked to pay Rs 3,000 as litigation charges to the complainant. The order was passed in February 2014 by a bench comprising BS Reddy as president and M Yashodamma as member.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Owner-wins-insurance-claim-for-stolen-vehicle/articleshow/44428239.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