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

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

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

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