Skip to main content

Insurance firm cannot pay less than the insured value - Consumer Forum

A consumer forum here has asked an insurance company to pay nearly Rs four lakh as claim to a man, whose insured car was stolen, saying it has no authority to assess the value of the vehicle at a lower side after accepting premium at a higher value.

The West Delhi District Consumer Forum, presided over by Bimla Makin asked United India Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs3,98,950 to Delhi resident Sanjay Chawla whose car was insured with it. The firm had offered Rs 2.24 lakh after the vehicle's theft instead of Rs 3,99,950, the amount it had insured it for.

The forum also awarded a compensation of Rs 30,000 to the man for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him.

The forum rejected the submission of the company that it had earlier valued the vehicle on much higher side on the basis of concealed and false facts provided by the client.

It said once the insurance firm has accepted premium on a particular Insured Declared Value (IDV) after assessing its value itself, then at the time of making the payment it has no authority to assess the value on a lower side.

"If the insurance company is valuing the vehicle on a higher side at the time of issuing the policy and accepting the premium accordingly, it does not lie in its mouth at the time of paying the claim that the vehicle was valued on a higher side....

"Once the insurance company has accepted the premium on a particular IDV after assessing its value itself then at the time of making the payment it has no authority to assess the value on a lower side," the forum, also comprising its members Urmila Gupta and Smita Shankar, said.

In his complaint, Chawla told the forum that he got his Chevrolet Tavera car insured with the firm but the vehicle got stolen in 2012.

The company approved Rs 2.24 lakh as IDV in full and final settlement of his claim, however, the complainant refused to accept it saying the car was insured for IDV of Rs 3,99,950 and for which insurance premium was duly charged by it, he said.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-asked-to-pay-nearly-rs-four-lakh-as-claim-114052300974_1.html

Comments

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.

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...

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.