Skip to main content

FIR for theft registered after 10 days: Insurance claim denied

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, passed the order while rejecting the revision petition of one Vijay Kumar, filed against Punjab State Consumer Commission's order.

Kumar had earlier approached a district forum, seeking a direction to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd, insurer of his tractor, to pay the insured amount after it got stolen.

The forum, however, dismissed complaint and thereafter, he field an appeal before state commission, which again dismissed his plea.

"Perusal of record further reveals that theft occurred on January 5, 2008, but FIR was lodged on January 15, 2008 and no specific date has been given regarding the intimation to the respondents. On account of delay in lodging FIR and intimation to insurance company, complaint was liable to be dismissed," NCDRC said.

It, however, also noted that the tractor was not insured comprehensively and theft of the tractor was not under cover of the insurance policy.

"The district forum rightly observed that tractor was not insured for theft purposes and the state commission rightly affirmed this finding.

"As tractor was not insured comprehensively and theft of tractor was not under cover of insurance policy, complainant was not entitled to any claim on account of theft of tractor," it said.

Kumar had contended before district consumer forum that his tractor, insured with the firm, was stolen along with its trolley on January 5, 2001 and an FIR was registered in this regard on January 15, 2001, and intimation was also given to the firm.

However, after claim was not settled by the firm, Kumar filed a complaint before district forum, he said.

The firm, however, submitted before the forum that tractor was insured to cover risk for agriculture purpose only and no premium was paid to recover risk of theft.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fir-for-theft-registered-after-10-days-insurance-claim-denied-114090500624_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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