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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more