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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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