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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Infringement of copyright or other rights under the Copyright Act is a cognizable, non-bailable offence

Citation : M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 Of 2022;  Date of Judgment/Order : May 20, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj. Background The Appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. The said application was allowed and an FIR was registered against the Respondent. The Respondent in turn prayed before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence which was allowed. This appeal is against the order of the High Court. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that the short question whi...
Post a Comment
Read more