Skip to main content

No Insurance for Car Carelessly Driven in Waterlogged Area

A jewellery firm was denied insurance claim for its damaged car by a consumer forum which said the vehicle was carelessly driven in heavily waterlogged area without considering the consequences.

West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Bimla Makin, rejected the plea of Gujranwala Jewellers seeking Rs 5,12,357 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, with which the car was insured, for the damaged vehicle.

"As the complainant's car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged underbridge carelessly and without (any) regard to the consequences that may follow in driving through heavily waterlogged underbridge...

"The Opposition Party (company) cannot be held liable for the loss or damage caused to vehicle due to own act of complainant in the present case. Hence, the company rightly rejected the claim of the complainant," the forum said.

The forum also said that the noise emanating from the engine was indicative of the additional wear and tear caused to the engine due to own act of complainant.

In the order, it also noted that the complainant had informed the insurance firm about the damage to the car after a delay of more than a week.

The complainant had approached the forum submitting that in November 2008, it had purchased the car which was insured with the insurance company.

Due to heavy rains in Delhi on July 27, 2009, the car which was parked at Wazirpur underbridge submerged under accumulated rain water and resulted in damage to the engine of vehicle, generating abnormal noise, the complaint said.

Gujranwala Jewellers communicated about the damage to the insurance company which repudiated the claim. The complainant then approached the forum seeking direction to the company to pay Rs 2,57,357 as claim and a compensation of Rs two lakh and cost of litigation of Rs 55,000.

The insurance firm, however, told the forum that the car was not parked under Wazirpur underbridge and was driven into the waterlogged area carelessly without considering consequences. It added that the complainant had committed breach of policy.

It also said that it was not intimated immediately as per policy condition and the complainant did not provide any estimate of repair.

 Article referred: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/No-Insurance-for-Car-Carelessly-Driven-in-Waterlogged-Area/852946

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

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...
4 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more