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

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more