//
archives

general insurance co

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Accident claim = when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511482503RP75-7613.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 75-76 OF 2013 (From the order dated 08.11.2012 in Appeal No. FA/12/95 & FA/12/98 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur) Alok Waghe S/o Shri S.D. Waghe R/o LIG, Tatibandh, Raipur, Ditrict Raipur (C.G.)                                                                   …Petitioner/Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, Shimangal Bhawan, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)                                                               …Respondent/Opp. Party … Continue reading

Vehicle theft – premium paid through cheque for renewal of policy was bounced due to bank fault – Refusal of granting insurance claim – not tenable = In the meanwhile, the vehicle, in question, was stolen on the mid-night of 09.07.2004. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Police and also informed OP No. 2 Insurance Company regarding the theft and requested for payment of insurance claim. However, the said claim was rejected by OP No. 2 and they informed the complainant that his cheque bearing number 282302 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.9,623/- had been dishonoured by OP No.1 and hence the insurance policy could not be renewed. The complainant then contacted OP No. 1 bank, where it was found that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant. The bank authorities vide their letter dated 13.07.2004 sent to the OP No. 2 insurance company stated that their counter clerk / officer had inadvertently returned the cheque issued by the complainant by oversight on 18.06.2004 and there was sufficient balance in savings account no. 6148 of the complainant. They also issued a banker’s cheque dated 13.07.2004 for Rs.9623/- in favour of OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 rejected the said request and also rejected the claim filed by the complainant as the vehicle had already been stolen by that time. It is further borne out from record that after receiving the cheque of Rs.9,623/-, the Insurance Company did issue policy in favour of the complainant which was valid for a period of one year till 15.06.2005 but the said policy was cancelled by the Company after the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. In the said insurance policy the total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle has been shown to be Rs.2,62,000/-. The complainant in his complaint and further in written submissions has stated that since the vehicle was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,45,959.40 and it was only 16 months old, when it was stolen. The complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.4 lakh as compensation for the value of the vehicle. However, from the IDV mentioned in the Policy issued by the insurance company, it can be safely presumed that the complainant is not entitled to get more than Rs.2,62,000/- for loss of the vehicle. However, looking at the negligence shown by the complainant in not pursuing this case after submitting cheque for the premium amount he needs to be penalised also to some extent. It is felt, therefore, that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as already allowed by the State Commission seems to be a reasonable amount for awarding compensation to the complainant for loss of the vehicle.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130808105104311RP462109204810.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 4621 OF 2009 (From the order dated 29.10.2009 in First Appeal No. 106/2007 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) B. Shankar s/o B. Bhadru c/o B. Parasuram IInd Floor, H. No. 1-9-285/3A, Lalitha Nagar Ramnagar Gundu Hyderabad – 500 044.                              …  Petitioner   Versus   1.   Union Bank of India Chikkadapally Branch, 1-8-563/2 … Continue reading

registration of the car stood in the name of Anil Kumar and petitioner after purchasing vehicle got it insured in his own name without transfer of registration certificate in his name. – not entitled to claim insurance = Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides as under: ”50(1)(b) The transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration”. 7. As per this provision, the petitioner was bound to get the registration certificate transferred in his name and intimate to the insurance company but as the petitioner failed to get it transferred in his name within specified period, petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation only on the ground that policy existed in his name. At the time of taking policy, petitioner had no insurable interest in the vehicle and respondent/OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint filed by the petitioner. We find no infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI             REVISION PETITION NO. 64 OF 2013  (From the order dated 10.10.2012 in Appeal No.876/2012 of the Haryana  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) D.P. Srivastava S/o Late Sh. Keshava Prasad Srivastava C1/102, Mayfair Tower Charmwood Village, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad – 121 009, Haryana                      …               Petitioner/Complainant Versus M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase II Opp. SBI Bank, New Delhi … Continue reading

The matter arises out of theft of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle on 21.3.2009. At the time of the theft the vehicle was insured with the revision petitioner IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Co, on the ground that on the day of the theft the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities. This amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the Insurance Co. 2. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Insurance Co. had insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.5,62,400/-, after charging a premium of Rs.20242.77. The insurance was effective from the date of purchase and was in operation when the vehicle was stolen on 21.3.2009.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                                             REVISION PETITION NO. 171 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 30.8.2011 in Appeal No.174 of 2011 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh) IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. FAI Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110067 And also at Lal Ganga Shopping … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,920 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com