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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...