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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more