Skip to main content

Insurance firm told to pay Rs. 50K for rejecting vehicle theft claim

District consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed an insurance company to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to a Nayagoan resident for deficient services, after her claim for a stolen vehicle was denied.

Disposing of a complaint filed by Saleena Rani, a resident of Naya Gaon, district SAS Nagar, the consumer forum also directed United India Insurance Company Limited, to pay Rs. 7,000 as cost of litigation.

The insurance company has also been ordered to pay Rs. 4.99 lakh to Tata Motors Finance Limited as the vehicle was under hypothecation with it.

The consumer forum presided over by Rajan Dewan on July 17, held the insurance company deficient in services and guilty of unfair trade practices for rejecting the claim on the grounds that the vehicle was not registered within one month of purchase.

The consumer forum’s order said: “Even if vehicle was not registered within the prescribed period, the insurance company could not have repudiated theclaim. Otherwise also, there was no nexus between the theft of the vehicle and non-holding of a valid registration certificate. The registration of the vehicle and the incident of theft, were two absolutely different matters having no link what so ever... thus by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant the insurance company certainly committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”

THE THEFT

In her representation, Rani had submitted that on May 5, 2012, her Indigo ECS (LX TC 111) car was stolen from outside a guest house in Delhi. A case in this regard was also registered.

She claimed to have lodged a claim for the stolen vehicle which was repudiated by the insurance company, in spite of all relevant documents being supplied to the insurance company.

 Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/insurance-firm-told-to-pay-50k-for-rejecting-vehicle-theft-claim/article1-1247020.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more