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

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...

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...

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...