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

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...