Skip to main content

Forum rejected argument that there was a delay in filing insurance claim

The District Consumer Redressal Forum here has ordered Reliance General Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh, besides Rs 6 lakh claim amount, to a local resident whose car was stolen.

Forum President Umesh Jhavalikar and member N D Kadam, in an order early this week, rejected the company's argument that there was a delay in filing insurance claim by the policy holder, Govind M Mandle, after the vehicle was stolen.

They held there was deficiency in service on part of the company in rejecting the claim and ordered it to pay claim amount of Rs 6 lakh and Rs 2 lakh as compensation to the complainant, a resident of Kalwa town, for causing mental agony and towards legal expenses.

Mandle said his car Chevrolet Tavera, which was insured with the company, went missing from near a local railway station on October 28, 2009.

He lodged a complaint with the police, who carried out a search for the car and on November 7, 2009 registered an FIR.

Mandle, meanwhile, filed insurance claim. The company rejected the same, saying there was a delay of nine days in filing of the vehicle theft complaint. Being aggrieved, he moved the Forum against the company.

The Forum, a quasi-judicial authority, observed the insurance firm rejected the claim on technical grounds and showed deficiency in service.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/company/reliance-insurance-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-compensation-to-car-owner-114072600597_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more