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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
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

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