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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more