Skip to main content

Consumer forum asks insurance firm to settle car's theft claim

 consumer forum here has asked an insurance company to settle a claim relating to the theft of a car, saying the firm took a "super-technical view" in rejecting the claim.

New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked The New India Insurance Company Ltd, with which the vehicle was insured, to settle the car's theft claim filed by a Delhi-based couple Preeti Roy and Pratik Chandra Roy.

The couple had approached the forum claiming Preeti, who was owner of the car, had later on transferred the vehicle in the name of her husband Pratik.

The car was stolen and thereafter Pratik approached the insurance company for theft claim.

The firm had rejected the claim stating that on the day of the theft, the husband had not got insurance policy transferred in his own name.

The forum said "the opposite party (insurance company) is taking a super-technical view of the matter without any solid basis. In law, the husband acts for the wife also."

The forum noted that the car was stolen on December 27, 2008, after physical transfer and application to RTO for change of registration certificate (R/C) in the husband's name on December 16, 2008.

"It is a case of technical violation in terms of Motor Vehicle Policy and opposite party (insurance company) should settle the claim on non-standard basis as the matter is of transfer between husband and wife who constitute one unit of family and it is not a case of two strangers," the forum, also comprising its member S R Chaudhary, said.

The company had also repudiated the claim on the ground that both the transferor and the transferee have to request for change of R/C and his wife has not requested for transfer.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/consumer-forum-asks-insurance-firm-to-settle-car-s-theft-claim-114060501237_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more