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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more