Two different people, allegedly deprived of their car insurance claims by two companies, met the same fate in the same consumer forum court. The Additional Suburban Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum within a week's time passed two orders in favour of the complainant consumers and asked Cholamandalam General Insurance and The Reliance General Insurance Company limited to pay 75% of the insurance claim for both the cars with the required interest.
Both Jayantilal Poker and Vinod Shukla had the same grievance — being denied the insurance claim taken under the package policy after their cars got stolen- against Cholamandalam and Reliance respectively. While Poker has been ordered to be given Rs3,56,250 with interest since March 2008 apart from Rs5,000 as the cost of complaint for his stolen Tavera Jeep, Shukla would be getting Rs6,50,066 and Rs900 rupees as the cost of complaint for his stolen Toyota Innova.
According to Poker's complaint Cholamandalam cited delay in intimation to the company and the police about his car being stolen on June 09, 2007 as the reason for declining his claim request.
The company also claimed that Poker's car was registered as a private vehicle however he used it on hire and reward basis for his Uma Shiv Tours and Travels. However, the forum paid heed to Poker's explanation of how he had to delay the intimation of theft on Saturday night by a day since the company's office was closed on Sunday.
Also, the forum observed that even if the car was used for on hire and reward basis, that was not the reason for theft and it was stolen when it was parked at his residence.
Shukla found out the reason for declining his claim only after a year and two months when Reliance filed it's affidavit in the forum claiming that Shukla lost the car due to his negligence as he hired a driver without verifying his credentials. However, the forum observed that Shukla had made his stand clear about how he hired his driver on his guard's recommendation after checking his license. Thus, Shukla was in no way responsible for the driver fleeing away with the car.
For both the cases, the president of the forum Suman Mahajan and member GL Chavan cited the same apex court order in the case of National Insurance Company versus Nitin Khandelwal in which the court observed that, " the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle nature of vehicle cannot be looked into to repudiate the claim on that basis."
Both Jayantilal Poker and Vinod Shukla had the same grievance — being denied the insurance claim taken under the package policy after their cars got stolen- against Cholamandalam and Reliance respectively. While Poker has been ordered to be given Rs3,56,250 with interest since March 2008 apart from Rs5,000 as the cost of complaint for his stolen Tavera Jeep, Shukla would be getting Rs6,50,066 and Rs900 rupees as the cost of complaint for his stolen Toyota Innova.
According to Poker's complaint Cholamandalam cited delay in intimation to the company and the police about his car being stolen on June 09, 2007 as the reason for declining his claim request.
The company also claimed that Poker's car was registered as a private vehicle however he used it on hire and reward basis for his Uma Shiv Tours and Travels. However, the forum paid heed to Poker's explanation of how he had to delay the intimation of theft on Saturday night by a day since the company's office was closed on Sunday.
Also, the forum observed that even if the car was used for on hire and reward basis, that was not the reason for theft and it was stolen when it was parked at his residence.
Shukla found out the reason for declining his claim only after a year and two months when Reliance filed it's affidavit in the forum claiming that Shukla lost the car due to his negligence as he hired a driver without verifying his credentials. However, the forum observed that Shukla had made his stand clear about how he hired his driver on his guard's recommendation after checking his license. Thus, Shukla was in no way responsible for the driver fleeing away with the car.
For both the cases, the president of the forum Suman Mahajan and member GL Chavan cited the same apex court order in the case of National Insurance Company versus Nitin Khandelwal in which the court observed that, " the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle nature of vehicle cannot be looked into to repudiate the claim on that basis."
No comments:
Post a Comment