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

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...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...