Skip to main content

Claim denied for not informing change of address

The apex consumer commission has denied insurance claim to a man for his goods destroyed in a fire as he had changed the place of his business without intimating the firm, which had insured his goods.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, passed the order while allowing the revision petition of State Bank of India, which was asked to pay the man for the loss as per the direction of Shimla state consumer commission.

"Complainant was under obligation to intimate insurance company about change of place of business and to get necessary endorsement on policy but he failed to intimate... And in such circumstances petitioner (bank) cannot be held guilty of any deficiency," the NCDRC said.

The bank had approached the NCDRC against the state commission's order that had asked it to pay Rs 1.71 lakh to Himachal Pradesh resident Anil Kumar for the loss of his goods by fire.

The bank had opposed Kumar's claim, saying that he had not intimated the insurance firm about changing his place of business.

While allowing the plea of SBI, the NCDRC noted that the bank had directed Kumar to get the necessary endorsement of transfer of place of business in the insurance policy, failing which, he would be responsible for all the risks.

According to Kumar's complaint filed before a district forum, he was carrying out a business at Kangra district in Himachal Pradesh and had taken cash credit limit of Rs 3 lakh from the bank.

Later on, Kumar shifted his business from Kangra to Mandi district and he claimed that the bank was informed.

On May 30, 2008, Kumar's shop was damaged in a. After the matter could not be settled amicably, Kumar filed a complaint before the forum alleging deficiency on the part of bank and the insurance firm.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/man-denied-insurance-claim-for-loss-of-goods-in-fire-114111800603_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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/
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