Skip to main content

Insurance company told to pay Rs 15.87L compensation

The Pune district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a private insurance company to pay Rs 15.87 lakh to a customer for deficient service by wrongly repudiating his insurance claim for damage caused by fire to his new car and for causing mental and physical agony. The forum dismissed the complaint against the car manufacturer and the dealer.

The complainant, Kishor L Nimhan, had purchased a new Skoda car for Rs 16.44 lakh from Acumen Motors Private Limited, Aundh, in 2006. He got the car insured for Rs 15.62 lakh with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited for a period between November 21, 2006, and November 30, 2007, and paid a premium of Rs 61,535 for the same.

On June 6, 2007, the car caught fire while it was in a stationary, switched-off mode in the parking place at Nimhan's residence. He had then reported the matter to the police and the car manufacturer as the vehicle was badly damaged. In the ensuing developments, Nimhan sent notices to both Skoda and Royal Sundaram Alliance, but a dispute prevailed between the car manufacturer and the insurance firm over who should pay for the damage.

The insurance firm insisted that it was not liable to pay for damages because the fire was the result of manufacturing defect.

The car manufacturer, on the other hand, insisted that there was no manufacturing defect as Nimhan had used the vehicle without any problem for six months from the date of purchase and for over 7,500 km.

The two-member consumer court bench, comprising president V P Utpat and member Geeta Ghatge, had to hire expert services of the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to establish whether the fire in the car had resulted out of any manufacturing defect. Relying on the ARAI's report, which concluded that there was no manufacturing defect, the forum gave its considered opinion that there was no cause of action against the car manufacturer, but the complainant was entitled to the sum insured, besides the claim of compensation from the insurance firm.

Nimhan's lawyer Bhalchandra Nikte said, "The forum has directed payment of the insured sum and the compensation within six months from the date of receipt of its order, passed on April 23. In case of a default, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. December 7, 2007." Counsel Rhishikesh Ganu appeared for Skoda in the case.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Insurance-company-told-to-pay-Rs-15-87L-compensation/articleshow/34444321.cms

Comments

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...

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...

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...