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

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...