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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more