Skip to main content

Insurance claim denied as driver left vehicle unlocked

The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man's plea seeking insurance claim for his stolen truck, holding that there was "negligence" on the part of the driver who had left the vehicle "unlocked".

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, dismissed the petition filed by Rajasthan resident Jagdish Prasad Bakshi who had sought insurance claim for his stolen truck, saying he has not come before it with clean hands.

"In case truck was locked, its key was not produced either before the police or before surveyor. The truck remained on spot unlocked for half an hour. Surveyor of the insurance company has reported that when the driver left for having tea, he left the key inside the truck. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands," the bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said.

The bench said it "is quite possible that driver may be working in cahoots with the thief".

It said the first and foremost duty of the driver was to produce the key before the police.

"However, the needful was not done. That is fatal. This clearly reveals negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the driver," the commission said.

Bakshi had approached the apex consumer commission with his revision petition challenging an order passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had dismissed his plea for insurance claim on the ground that the driver was negligent in taking care of the truck as he left the key inside the truck.

The driver of the truck had stopped the vehicle at 3 AM in front of a roadside eatery situated along a highway in Rajasthan. When the driver returned, he could not find the truck there. An FIR was lodged in which it was stated that the vehicle was locked.

When he approached the insurance company for the claim, his plea was rejected and he moved consumer forum seeking a direction to Oriental Insurance Company to pay him the insured amount.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-claim-denied-as-driver-left-vehicle-unlocked-114052900837_1.html

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.

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...

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.