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

Most viewed this month

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.