Skip to main content

Non-lodging of FIR within 7 days in vehicle theft fatal - Consumer Forum

A man's plea seeking claim from an insurance company for loss of his vehicle parts has been dismissed by a consumer forum, which said failure to lodge an FIR for a "period of seven days in case of theft of a vehicle is fatal".

While rejecting the plea of Delhi resident Kishan Chand, against National Insurance Co Ltd, West Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Bimla Makin, said, "There were serious doubts about the genuineness of this claim".

"Non-lodging of the FIR for a period of seven days in the case of theft of a vehicle is fatal and adversely affects the rights of the Opposite Party (insurance company) and under facts and circumstances of this case, there are serious doubts about the genuineness of this claim.

"Hence...We hold that complaint is time barred and even otherwise there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party," the forum said.

It noted there were lots of unanswered queries regarding loss and recovery of vehicle.

"It is difficult to believe that under what circumstances the vehicle was stolen and how it was recovered by the complainant himself in another state without any assistance from anybody," the forum said.

The forum also noted that there was no witness of recovery of this vehicle from the place from where it is alleged to have been recovered.

"...Story put forward by the complainant is not believable per se and added with it is the fact that for seven days neither the police nor the insurance company was informed of the theft of the vehicle," it said.

Chand had told the forum that he had purchased a Maruti Omni fitted with CNG kit for commercial purpose to be used as taxi.

The vehicle was insured with the insurance company, effective from December 29, 2006 to December 28, 2007 and during this period it got stolen on November 23, 2007 and an FIR was recorded on November 30, 2007.

Later, however, he found the vehicle abandoned at Tawadu, Haryana with all its important parts stolen.

The complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent Rs one lakh towards repairs/ installation of stolen parts and subsequently lodged a claim with the the company on December 24, 2007.

Inspite of repeated visits, his claim was not settled, he said, adding that, thereafter, he approached the forum seeking a direction to the company to pay Rs lakh.

The insurance company, however, contended before the forum that no FIR regarding the theft was lodged at the police station within seven days and no intimation was given to it.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/non-lodging-of-fir-within-7-days-in-vehicle-theft-fatal-114082500631_1.html

Comments

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.

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.

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...