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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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