Skip to main content

Interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft to the insurance co. by the complainant

In CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs TANUSREE MONDAL, revision petition was filed by insurer against order of the State Forum.

In this matter, the respondent–complainant had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- for her vehicle (Tata Sumo) from the revisionists – opposite party – insurance co., which was in force till 08.08.2008.  Premium of Rs.6,435/- has been paidThe complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 29.06.2008. F.I.R was lodged by the complainant and the contention of insurance co. was 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 contention of the complainant was that there was no delay in informing the insurance co. about the theft as she intimated the insurance co. on 01.07.2008 over phone but she was advised to report the theft in writing with a copy of the FIR. The complainant got the copy of the FIR on 10.07.2008, and immediately thereafter, on 11.07.2008, she intimated the insurance co. by registered post, as such there was no intentional delay.

The State Forum found that on 11-07-2008 the O.P.no. 2 was informed through registered post which was admittedly received on 14-07-2008 and agreeing with the District Forum awarded compensation.

The National Forum however agreeing with the lower forums found that State and District Forum have differed on the compensation. 

The National Forum found that there was protracted correspondence between the complainant and the insurance co. including repeated requests etc. by the complainant from the date of intimation of theft by registered post i.e. from 11.07.2008 till the date of filing of consumer complaint in the District Forum i.e. on 05.04.2013, but her claim was not settled. The complainant had a valid policy, she had duly paid the premium, she lodged an F.I.R., she intimated the insurance co., she kept on corresponding and requesting, for a period of about 4 years and 9 months, and was (then) left with no option but to seek remedy under law / approach the consumer forum (in this case). 

The National Forum held that the insurance co. should have been prompt and dutiful in settling the claim within a reasonable period, that is, within a period that appears reasonable per se, and which a reasonable man will not agitate. We do not want to endorse in any manner a proposition that the interest will be paid only (and only) when a consumer (as a last resort in forced duress) approaches the consumer fora. The principle that is correct, and that we want to convey, is that the insurance co. was required to be and should have been prompt and dutiful in settling a bonafide claim, and should in no way nurture any (mis)notion that it can sit over a claim till the consumer in forced duress seeks remedy in the consumer fora. Therefore, it is just, appropriate and necessary that the interest should be paid from the date of intimation of the theft by the complainant to the insurance co. i.e. from 11.07.2008.

We find the State Commission’s observation erroneous that awarding compensation as well as interest is “not tenable under the law”. Interest is to offset the delay in making the due payment promptly and dutifully at the due time. Compensation is for the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness,  the other, compensation, is for the loss and injury, the harassment and difficulty, the uncertainty and helplessness. The protracted correspondence and requests, for about 4 years and 9 months, the forced duress to approach the consumer fora, the protracted litigation in one, two, and now three, consumer fora, definitely qualify for just, appropriate and equitable compensation, commensurate with the loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness. We accordingly find the award of compensation made by the District Forum to be just, equitable, appropriate, reasonable, lawful.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more