Skip to main content

Insurance company told to pay up for stolen auto - Cannot reject for late premium payment

I: A consumer forum has held that an insurance company cannot reject a claim merely on the ground that the premium was received late. The forum directed IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company to pay Andheri (E) resident Arvind Pithva the insured amount of Rs1.25 lakh for his stolen autorickshaw along with Rs55,000 compensation.

Pithva had purchased the rickshaw on a loan for Rs1.25 lakh and it was insured with the company. The insurance was valid from June 21, 2008 to June 21, 2009. According to a complaint filed with the Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, he had parked the rickshaw in front of his house on June 26, 2008, but the next morning, he could not find it.

Pithva filed a complaint with the Andheri police, intimated the company about the theft and filed his claim. But the insurance claim was rejected. The company told Pithva that since the premium was paid on June 25, 2008, it was not liable to pay the insurance amount. The police informed the court that they could not find the thief. Pithva filed the complaint on January 7, 2011 and submitted a copy of the FIR as evidence.

The insurance company filed its reply and iterated its stand. It told the forum that since the cheque for the premium was deposited only on June 25, 2009, the insurance policy was invalid and it was not responsible for reimbursement of the claim. The company stated that the policy was active only from June 27, 2008.

Taking the FIR copy into consideration, the forum observed that it was established that the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of June 22-23, 2008. It also found substance in Pithva's statement that he had issued the cheque before the incident and it was not his fault that the company encashed it only on June 25, 2008.

The forum pointed out that the insurance papers showed the policy was valid from June 21, 2008. "This proves that the cheque was issued by the complainant before the theft," the forum said.

 Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-15/mumbai/41413194_1_insurance-claim-consumer-forum-cheque

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more