Skip to main content

In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane

In CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs TANUSREE MONDAL, the appeal was filed by the insurer against the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission wherein the two fora below found deficiency in service on the part of the insurance co.

In this case, the respondent/insured's car was stolen against which she filed FIR. The insurer disputed her claim on the sole ground that the complainant intimated about the theft of vehicle after expiry of 14 days and as such she had violated the conditions of the insurance policy.

The  respondent/insured complained before the District Forum which allowing the complaint held that the reason for rejection by the insurer is too fragile to merit acceptance. A man of common prudence shall primarily lay emphasis on extensive search of the stolen vehicle. Complainant left no stone unturned in search of the vehicle. Local P.S. was informed, P.S. case was started. This prompt action on the part of the complainant must not go unrewarded. She was definitely in perplexed state of mind when she found it stolen. Naturally this delay of 14 days to inform O.P. no. 2 cannot be regarded fatal to extinguish her hope for reimbursement of the insured sum.

The State Forum on appeal agreeing the District Forum and referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, held that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. In case of material breach of policy terms and conditions, an Insurer has definite ground to repudiate a claim, otherwise not.  In the case of a theft related case, if there is nothing to suspect the bona fide of a claim, Insurance Company should not act contrary to the spirit of the policy that envisages indemnification of loss arising out of such peril. NCDRC was of view that in case of a theft claim what is relevant and material for adjudicating the claim is whether the theft had indeed taken place or not and whether the occurrence took place within the subsistence of the insurance policy or not.

A revision petition was filed by the insurer before the National Commission which also sided with the lower tribunals and made some important observation on compensation which has been highlighted here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more