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

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

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more