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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more