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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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