Skip to main content

Dumper theft: ICICI Lombard asked to pay Rs 14 lakh claim

Dismissing the defence of an insurance company that there was a delay in lodging the claim for the theft of a dumper, the Thane district consumers forum has directed the company to settle the claim of Rs 14 lakh along with payment of legal expenses.

Thane District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (TDCDRF) chairman Umesh V Jawalikar and member N D Kadam, in their order on Wednesday, noted that the ICICI Lombard General Insurance company was unnecessarily making an issue out of the delay in lodging of the claim, which was not the case at all.

Bhojraj V Tichkule, a resident of Thane city, in his complaint to the forum stated that on May 13, 2009, his driver had parked his dumper in front of a transport company at Vasai. Next day, when the driver returned to take the dumper it was not found in its place.

Hence, he immediately informed Tichkule, who initiated the process of search and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. But, the police asked him to carry out the search of his dumper and later come and lodge a complaint.

When he did not find the dumper, Tichkule lodged a complaint with the police through FIR on May 21, 2009, and also informed the insurance company about the same and lodged a claim with them.

The dumper was insured with the ICICI Lombard insurance company for Rs 14,21,000, which the complainant claimed.

However, the company said that dumper driver might have left the keys to the vehicle which resulted in the theft. It also told the court that they had asked for the keys of the dumper, which the owner did not give.

In its order, the forum noted that the insurance company was taking recourse to technical reasons and under the garb of 'ifs and buts', rejecting the claim.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-11/thane/40513852_1_dumper-driver-icici-lombard-general-insurance-claim

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more