Skip to main content

'Can't reject insurance claim even if vehicle doesn't have RC'

An insurance company cannot reject a claim against theft of vehicle on the grounds that the owner does not yet hold a valid registration certificate, a consumer forum here has ruled, directing United India Insurance to pay `20,000 as compensation to a Kajheri resident besides the declared value of `43,864.

Holding the firm deficient in services, the forum also ordered that Pradeep Kumar be paid `7,000 as cost of litigation. "The law on the subject is clear that the insurance company is not entitled to repudiate the claim on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered," observed the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, in its September 10 order, terming the claim rejection "totally unjustified and illegal".

Pradeep Kumar had moved the forum saying that he had got his Honda Activa scooter that had a temporary registration number at the time, insured from United India Insurance Company Limited in June 2012.

The scooter was stolen on July 3, 2012, from the parking area of the lake in Sector 42 when he had gone for a walk, and the FIR was registered by the police on July 7. He added that the insurance company was also immediately informed about the theft, and it had assured of settling the claim after receipt of an 'untraced' report from the police.

Justifying the repudiation, the firm told the forum that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not getting his vehicle registered. Further, the company submitted that the FIR had been lodged four days later. However, the forum held that, as per police records, the intimation of theft was given on the same day.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Chandigarh/Can-t-reject-insurance-claim-even-if-vehicle-doesn-t-have-RC-yet-consumer-forum/SP-Article1-1121301.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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