Skip to main content

Insurance Co asked to pay Rs 4.94L to bank for customer fraud

A consumer forum here has ordered United India Insurance to pay Rs 4.94 lakhs to Thane District Central Co-operative Bank for being deficient in its services with regard to the bank's claim in a customer fraud case.

The bank, in its complaint, told the Thane District Consumer Redressel Forum (TDCRF) that between May and October 2003, some of the bank employees had misappropriated a sum of Rs 4.94 lakhs from the account of one of the customers.

The bank had immediately brought it to the notice of the insurance company and also lodged a police complaint.It had lodged a claim for the amount with United India Insurance from which it had taken insurance policy.

The insurance company, despite more than 24 reminders, slept over the claim, the bank informed the forum.

The insurance firm argued before the forum that the policy was to be honoured for limited contingencies like fire, theft, floods, etc, and not if there was a fraud in the bank.

TDCRF president Umesh Jhavalikar and member N D Kadam dismissed the insurance company's stand and stated that the bank had taken an indemnity policy from the insurance firm, which was in force at the time of fraud by its employees.

The forum noted that after receipt of the claim and documents relating to it in August 2004, it was the statutory responsibility of the insurance firm, as per section 9 of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, to appoint a surveyor within 72 hours which it had not done.

Despite three reminders till January 16, 2005, the insurance firm had not taken any action on the same and this amounts to violation of IRDA regulations, it said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-co-asked-to-pay-rs-4-94l-to-bank-for-customer-fraud-114102200352_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