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

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