Delay in lodging an FIR for stolen property cannot be grounds for an insurance firm to reject the claim of its policyholder, a consumer court here has ruled.
The court directed an insurance firm to pay a policyholder Rs 1.48 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% from the date when his vehicle was stolen and Rs 2,000 to cover litigation costs. The firm was told to pay the amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
On January 14, the complainant moved a fresh plea before the additional district consumer disputes redressal forum, stating that the firm has not paid him the amount even after the six weeks' time given by the forum, nor has it moved an appeal before the state consumer forum against the order. He has called for appropriate action against the insurance firm and fresh damages for not executing the order.
The forum recently said that in a case involving an insurance claim for a stolen car, police take time in lodging an FIR in the hope that the complainant might get back his vehicle if a proper search is carried out in the vicinity where the theft has occurred.
"It is only after all hopes of tracing the vehicle recede that the police lodge the FIR. The common citizen prefers going by the police's advice rather than insisting on the FIR," the forum, comprising president Anjali Deshmukh and S K Pacharne, observed.
"Cases like these have come up before the forum many times in the past. It is not correct to say that policy terms and conditions are violated because of the delay in lodging the FIR," the forum observed.
Complainant Sachin B Saste, proprietor of a tours and travel firm in Chinchwad, had moved the forum on April 9, 2014, through his lawyer Vaibhav Jathar, challenging a December 11, 2013, communication by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company rejecting his insurance claim. The firm had cited a six-day delay in lodging an FIR and eight days' delay in informing the company about the theft as reasons for rejecting the claim. It has said that the delay violated the policy terms and conditions.
However, the forum ruled that the insured vehicle was stolen during the period when the policy was active. The complainant had promptly alerted the police control room on the day of the theft and had visited the police station thrice to lodge an FIR.
As such, the complainant was eligible for his claim along with interest at 9% from June 26, 2013, when the vehicle was stolen.
The Case
* Chinchwad-based travel firm proprietor S B Saste's car was stolen between June 25 and 26, 2013, from near his residence
* The car was insured for the period between October 25, 2012, and October 24, 2013
* Soon after realising that his vehicle had been stolen, Saste called the police control room on June 26, 2013, to inform them about the theft. Police then sounded out a wireless alert across all their units in search of the stolen car
* The same day, Saste approached Chinchwad police station to lodge an FIR, but police suggested that he search for the vehicle for a few days before lodging an FIR
* He was given similar advice by police on June 28 and 29, 2013, when he approached them to lodge the FIR
* Finally, on July 2, 2013, police lodged the FIR and on July 4, 2013, Saste filed a claim with the insurance company
* On December 11, 2013, the insurance communicated to Saste that his claim had been rejected because of the delay of six days in lodging the FIR and eight-day delay in informing the firm about the theft
* The firm insisted that the delay was a violation of the terms and conditions of its insurance policy
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Delayed-FIR-no-reason-to-reject-claim/articleshow/45927006.cms
The court directed an insurance firm to pay a policyholder Rs 1.48 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% from the date when his vehicle was stolen and Rs 2,000 to cover litigation costs. The firm was told to pay the amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
On January 14, the complainant moved a fresh plea before the additional district consumer disputes redressal forum, stating that the firm has not paid him the amount even after the six weeks' time given by the forum, nor has it moved an appeal before the state consumer forum against the order. He has called for appropriate action against the insurance firm and fresh damages for not executing the order.
The forum recently said that in a case involving an insurance claim for a stolen car, police take time in lodging an FIR in the hope that the complainant might get back his vehicle if a proper search is carried out in the vicinity where the theft has occurred.
"It is only after all hopes of tracing the vehicle recede that the police lodge the FIR. The common citizen prefers going by the police's advice rather than insisting on the FIR," the forum, comprising president Anjali Deshmukh and S K Pacharne, observed.
"Cases like these have come up before the forum many times in the past. It is not correct to say that policy terms and conditions are violated because of the delay in lodging the FIR," the forum observed.
Complainant Sachin B Saste, proprietor of a tours and travel firm in Chinchwad, had moved the forum on April 9, 2014, through his lawyer Vaibhav Jathar, challenging a December 11, 2013, communication by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company rejecting his insurance claim. The firm had cited a six-day delay in lodging an FIR and eight days' delay in informing the company about the theft as reasons for rejecting the claim. It has said that the delay violated the policy terms and conditions.
However, the forum ruled that the insured vehicle was stolen during the period when the policy was active. The complainant had promptly alerted the police control room on the day of the theft and had visited the police station thrice to lodge an FIR.
As such, the complainant was eligible for his claim along with interest at 9% from June 26, 2013, when the vehicle was stolen.
The Case
* Chinchwad-based travel firm proprietor S B Saste's car was stolen between June 25 and 26, 2013, from near his residence
* The car was insured for the period between October 25, 2012, and October 24, 2013
* Soon after realising that his vehicle had been stolen, Saste called the police control room on June 26, 2013, to inform them about the theft. Police then sounded out a wireless alert across all their units in search of the stolen car
* The same day, Saste approached Chinchwad police station to lodge an FIR, but police suggested that he search for the vehicle for a few days before lodging an FIR
* He was given similar advice by police on June 28 and 29, 2013, when he approached them to lodge the FIR
* Finally, on July 2, 2013, police lodged the FIR and on July 4, 2013, Saste filed a claim with the insurance company
* On December 11, 2013, the insurance communicated to Saste that his claim had been rejected because of the delay of six days in lodging the FIR and eight-day delay in informing the firm about the theft
* The firm insisted that the delay was a violation of the terms and conditions of its insurance policy
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Delayed-FIR-no-reason-to-reject-claim/articleshow/45927006.cms
Comments
Post a Comment