Skip to main content

Insurance claim denied over delay in reporting vehicle theft

A district consumer forum here has rejected a man's plea seeking insurance claim on his stolen vehicle, saying he had taken over a month to inform police and the insurance company about the theft, which was not "normal human conduct".

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rejected the complaint of Kaushlendra Singh after noting that due to the delay, the insurance company could not get an opportunity to investigate the theft of his motorcycle and was entitled to repudiate the claim.

"We found that the complainant has failed to explain his conduct in not immediately informing the police and waiting for one-and-a-half months to lodge a report. Such conduct is not normal human conduct in case of theft.

"This creates doubt in the case of complainant and Opposite Party (insurance company) is entitled to repudiate the claim for violation of conduct in such circumstances as Opposite Party has got no opportunity to get the theft investigated," said the forum presided by CK Chaturvedi and comprising members SR Chaudhary and Asha Kumar.

Delhi resident Singh had approached the forum claiming that his motorcycle was stolen on September 29, 2009, after which he informed police and the insurance company.

However, the company rejected the claim, whereupon he had approached the forum, he said.

In its reply, the company said that Singh only informed police after about one-and-a-half months of the theft, that is, on November 11, 2009 and, thereafter, notified the firm.

It was breach of the policy's terms and conditions according to which, in case of loss by theft, the insurance company should be immediately informed, the firm said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-claim-denied-over-delay-in-reporting-vehicle-theft-114063000909_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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