Skip to main content

License not necessary in theft cases - Consumer Forum

Venkat Rathnam P, a resident of Indira Street, Subbaiahnapalya, Bangalore, had parked his vehicle (KA-03-HK-6835) in front of Aishwarya Hair Dressers near Patel Public School, 80 Feet Road, Banaswadi at 7.30am on November 21, 2012. When he came out of the shop, he found his vehicle missing and immediately filed a complaint at the nearest police station.

As the vehicle was insured with National Insurance, Venkat approached it to claim insurance. His policy (35100731126201121107) was valid from July 25, 2012 to July 24, 2013. As the theft happened in this covered period, the complainant was entitled to claim the insurance amount of Rs 33,603. The National Insurance official asked him to furnish the relevant police documents and the original vehicle registration certificate.

Venkat submitted all the original documents and vehicle keys along with the FIR, chargesheet and claim petition to the insurance company officials. "Instead of settling the claim, the insurance company issued a letter on May 28, 2013, stating the claim has been repudiated on the ground of not possessing a driving licence at the time of theft," he said in his petition to the consumer forum.

The forum concluded the company failed to settle the claim which could be considered deficiency in service.

The company said Venkat did not possess his driving licence at the time of theft and therefore, his claim couldn't be settled as Venkat had violated the insurance policy condition by riding the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Hence, compensation was ruled out.

The consumer forum held the policy entails any vehicle owner to possess a valid licence at the time of accident, if any, but this was a case of theft. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the consumer court said in case of a vehicle theft, "breach of condition is not germane and repudiating the claim without any justifiable cause in theft cases is nothing but deficiency in service".

The company was directed to settle the claim for a sum of Rs 33,603 along with an interest at 9% per annum from June 1, 2013, till the date of realization. It was also asked to pay Rs 3,000 as litigation charges to the complainant. The order was passed in February 2014 by a bench comprising BS Reddy as president and M Yashodamma as member.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Owner-wins-insurance-claim-for-stolen-vehicle/articleshow/44428239.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...