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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...