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

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...

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...

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...