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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more