Skip to main content

Claim rejected because of 3 months delay in reporting

Delhi state consumer commission has set aside an order directing an insurance firm to pay the claim to man for his stolen vehicle, saying he had intimated the company about the theft after a delay of three months in violation of terms of the policy.

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by its judicial member S A Siddiqui, passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd against an order of a district consumer forum.

In its order of January 30, 2012, the forum had asked the insurance firm to pay the claim to Delhi resident Tilak Raj Taneja, whose vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of March 15-16, 2001.

The insurance company had denied the claim to Taneja on the ground that he informed them about it on June 11, 2001, after nearly three months.

The state commission, however, set aside the forum's order, saying, "The insurance company has direct interest in the matter...It was to indemnify the owner of the vehicle."

"Therefore, incidence of theft should have been promptly intimated to the insurance company so that the alleged theft could have been investigated promptly and efforts ought to have been made to recover the stolen vehicle," the commission said. It, however, noted that the the information to the police was given without any delay.

"The information of the theft should have been given to the insurance company immediately, i.E., within 24 hours," it said, adding that "obviously this constitutes open violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-has-direct-interest-in-theft-matters-commission-114111700926_1.html

 Similar judgments

 SC ruling in United India Insurance Company Ltd v/s M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, where it had held that policy terms, requiring the incident to the reported "immediately", must be strictly construed to fasten liability on the insurance firm
National commission in a recent judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v/s Jogendra Singh. Here police complaint filed after 10 and insurer after 12 days.

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