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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more