Skip to main content

Cannot go against surveyor report: Consumer forum

The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum has pulled up the New India Assurance Company for refusing to accept an insurance claim of a businessman on the grounds that rainwater and not flood water had destroyed his goods.

Citing that the insurance company's defense to refuse claim on such technical grounds as unjust, the forum has directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 and insurance of Rs 8.46 lakh at six per cent interest to Ajay Shivnani of M/s Satyam Distributors. His goods were destroyed in heavy rains in 2009. In his complaint, Shivnani told the forum that he took an insurance of Rs 15 lakh for goods stored in a warehouse between May 26, 2009 and May 25, 2010. Shivnani said despite his attempts to shift the goods to dry area, heavy rains on October 4 and 5, 2009 destroyed a huge chunk of goods estimated to be worth Rs 11.74 lakh.

The complainant immediately informed the insurance company, which on October 6, sent their investigator Surendra Kumar Kalra to verify Shivnani's claims. Kalra, in his report on October 26, 2009, accepted goods were destroyed in the rains but valued the loss of goods at Rs 8.46 lakh and not Rs 11.44 lakh as demanded by Shivnani.

The company, however, refused to pay the claim to Shivnani citing the above technical point.

The forum, after going through the insurance papers, said the company was not justified in raising such technical grounds when their own investigator had verified and accepted Shivnani's claim after which they passed the order.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Dont-refuse-claim-on-technical-grounds-Consumer-forum/articleshow/34341364.cms

 Comment:
The above contention of the Ld. Forum appears to be opposed to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company, wherein the Hon'ble court clearly stated "under the Insurance Act, the assistance of a surveyor should be taken but the insurer was not bound to accept his opinion. The insurer can depute another surveyor and accept the latter view. The court would interfere only if the rejection of the survey report is arbitrary or malafide."

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