Skip to main content

Insurance company told to shell out Rs 13 lakh for refusing claim

 A district consumer forum on June 19 directed an insurance company to pay a local resident his claimed amount of Rs 12,53,335 and a legal cost of Rs50,000 for repudiating an insurance claim. The New India Assurance Company had refused the claim amount on grounds that the driver of the insured vehicle, involved in accident, had a fake driving licence.

According to the case, Sarabjit Singh had got his vehicle insured with the company, which was valid from February 28, 2013 to February 27, 2014. In an accident near Ranchi in March 24, 2013, the vehicle got completely smashed. Following this, Singh had immediately informed the insurance company officials.

According to Singh, the company had carried out a spot-survey of the vehicle, and following the advice of their examiner, he had the vehicle transported to Mohali by spending more than Rs 50,000 as carriage charge. After this, Singh had submitted relevant documents along with an estimated claim of Rs 12,53,335 and his driving licence to the insurance company. However, the insurance company had refused the claim stating the licence of the driver was fake.

In the forum, Singh successfully proved that his licence was not fake and that he had applied for renewal of licence. Deciding the case in favour of Singh, the court observed, "Barely non-deposit of licence fee cannot make the driving licence of the driver invalid. The driver has made the proper fee against receipt. Therefore, this ground of fake licence for repudiating the claim of the complainant does not hold." 

The court directed the company to pay Rs 12,53,335, the insured cost of the vehicle at 9% interest from the date of refutation of the letter. Besides this, it also ordered the company to pay Rs 50,000 towards the cost of lawsuit and as compensation for psychological harassment. 

The court judgment had come on June 19.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Insurance-company-told-to-shell-out-Rs-13-lakh/articleshow/37105421.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more