Skip to main content

Truck left with key in ignition: NCDRC denies theft claim

The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man's appeal seeking over Rs 7 lakh compensation from an insurance company for his stolen truck, noting that the driver himself had left the key in ignition.

In its order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also raised serious objections on the failure of Delhi Police's SHO to register the FIR of the theft on the day of incident itself.

The NCDRC bench, presided by Justice V K Jain, rejected the revision petition of Arjun Lal Jat, filed against the Rajasthan State Commission's order.

The state commission had held that Jat was not entitled to get any compensation from HDFC Irgo General, which had insured his truck.

The NCDRC passed the order while noting that the driver was the only person in the vehicle and he had left it in start condition with the keys in the ignition.

"... It can hardly be disputed that driver left the truck unattended with the key of the truck in the ignition. Had the driver not left the key in the ignition, it might not have been possible for thief to commit theft of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was clearly negligent in leaving the truck unattended with the key inside the ignition," the NCDRC bench, also comprising its member B C Gupta, said.

It added that once it was shown that the theft took place solely on account of driver, employed by Jat, the insurance firm cannot be made liable for such negligent act on the part of the driver and cannot be directed to reimburse the insured.

Jat had told the NCDRC that his truck, insured with the company, was stolen from in front of All India Institute of Medical Sciences on January 20, 2010 and an FIR was lodged in this regard on January 29, 2010.

He also lodged a claim with the insurance firm. However, after it denied to pay the claim, Jat approached the district consumer forum, seeking a direction to the firm to pay Rs 7.16 lakh.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/truck-left-with-key-in-ignition-ncdrc-denies-theft-claim-114090300828_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more