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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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