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

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

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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more