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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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