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

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more

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