Skip to main content

Claim rejection due to delay in intimation upheld by NCRDC

While observing that the theft of a vehicle is required to be reported to the insurance company immediately after the theft is detected otherwise the insurer is not liable to reimburse the insured for such a loss, NCDRC upheld the repudiation of insurance claim by insurance companies in two separate cases of theft of vehicle. This order was pronounced by the Commission during the hearing of two revision petitions. Subject matter of both the petitions was similar i.e. theft of vehicle and repudiation of claim by insurance companies on the ground of delay in intimation of the theft to the insurance company. In one case complainant purchased a truck dumper and got the same insured with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen between 06.6.2011 to 07.6.2011 and a report with the concerned police station was lodged on 07.6.2011 itself. The intimation to the insurance company however, was given only on 07.9.2011. The claim lodged by the complainant was rejected by the insurance company on account of delayed intimation of the theft to it. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum which allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. An appeal filed by the Company challenging the said order of Forum was dismissed by Rajasthan State Commission. Aggrieved by the orders, Insurance Company filed a revision Petition before NCDRC. In the other case the complainant purchased a vehicle and got the same insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period from 16.01.2009 to 15.01.2010. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen on 28.09.2009, and could not be traced. An FIR was registered by the police on 06.11.2009 but the intimation of the theft to the insurance company was given on 09.11.2009, after delay of 41 days. Since no claim was paid to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. It was claimed by the insurance company that the complainant had contravened the terms and conditions of the policy by not lodging the FIR and not intimating them immediately after the occurrence. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the concerned State Commission also dismissed an appeal in the matter, hence, the complainant filed revision petition. After perusal of material on record and hearing the parties, NCDRC decided in favor of insurance companies and noted, “The insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the said theft came to his knowledge and mere intimating the police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since admittedly, there was substantial delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company in both these cases, the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim on account of the aforesaid default on the part of the insured.” [Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Prakash, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 20, decided on January 11, 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more