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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more