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

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. (...

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...

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...