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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more