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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more