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

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

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

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more