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.
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