Skip to main content

TDCRF reverses earlier order, asks insurance firm to pay claim

A consumer forum here has set aside its earlier order rejecting a transporter’s claim for his stolen truck and has now ordered an insurance firm to pay Rs 8.21 lakh to him.

The Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (TDCRF) had in February rejected the Rs 14 lakh claim of Bhiwandi-based transporter Jaykant Bhagawati Prasad Pandey  for his stolen truck, while observing that just because the branch office of any organisation is located within the forum’s jurisdiction, the claim cannot be lodged with it.

Pandey had filed the claim with the Thane office of the New India Assurance company, while he had taken the insurance policy from the firm’s Santa Cruz office.

He had informed the forum that in 2009, when his truck was going from Mumbai to Patna, some persons got into the vehicle and after giving tranquiliser to the driver, they threw him out  and escaped with the truck.

Pandey had then sought a claim from the insurance firm which rejected it on the ground that the truck driver had given lift to three persons with an intention to earn money. This is clear violation of the contract of insurance and hence, the claim cannot be honoured, the insurance firm said.

Subsequently, Pandey approached the TDCRF and claimed Rs 14 lakhs, including Rs 10,95,000 as cost of the truck, Rs 1 lakh for mental sufferings, Rs 1.85 lakh interest and Rs 25,000 as legal expenses.

In his claim, Pandey had made the insurance firm’s Thane office as respondent and had neither included the head office nor the Santa Cruz branch from where he took the policy.

Just because the branch office (of respondent company) is situated in jurisdiction of the consumer forum, the claim cannot be lodged with it, the TDCRF then said in its order.

Later, Pandey challenged the forum’s order.

After going through the matter, TDCRF president Umesh Jhawalikar and member N D Kadam recently observed that the surveyor’s report and the complaint filed with local police concluded that the truck was stolen and could not be traced.

The respondent had no valid reason to reject the claim as the truck was in possession of a licenced driver for transporting goods, and it had been stolen during the insurance validity period, the forum noted.

The respondent had argued that the driver had given lift to outsiders in the truck which was illegal and during the period the vehicle had been stolen.

In this connection, the TDCRF noted that as the truck had been stolen during the validity of the insurance policy, rejecting the claim on technical grounds of violation of terms and conditions is not justified.

Citing certain earlier directions of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the forum ordered the insurance company to pay Rs 8,21,000 to the claimant and also Rs 50,000 for his legal and other expenses.

 Article referred: http://freepressjournal.in/tdcrf-reverses-earlier-order-asks-insurance-firm-to-pay-claim/

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