Professional & Knowledgable Law Team

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Consumer Courts Awareness

Reliance told to pay Rs 16,800 vehicle damage claim
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 19
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Reliance General Insurance Company to indemnify the loss on non-standard basis and pay Rs 16,800 along with 15 per cent interest to a Sector-30 resident towards the payment for the repair of his vehicle.

The district forum comprising its president PD Goel, and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota has also directed the opposite party to pay Rs 7,000 as costs of litigation.
Complainant Naresh Chaudhary had claimed that he had insured his Tata Indigo car with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd as a passenger-carrying vehicle but due to family problems, he could not use the same for commercial purpose and got it insured as a private vehicle.
Later, he requested the opposite party to make necessary correction in the policy to which the insurance company replied that before correction, the vehicle needed to be inspected. Also Rs 200 were demanded as inspection charges.
The company later informed him that necessary formalities had been completed and he would receive the corrected policy. However, the policyholder failed to receive the corrected policy till the filing of the complaint.
He averred that his vehicle met with an accident on April 16, 2010 and consequently informed the company.
He got it repaired by spending Rs 28,480 and submitted the relevant documents to the company. He alleged that the company repudiated his claim on the ground that the policy was issued for a passenger-carrying vehicle, whereas the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle.
The counsel for the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. argued that the FIR was lodged on April 19, 2010 four days after the accident, while the company was informed of the same after 13 days of the accident.
It was pleaded that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 22,400. He further argued that the vehicle was insured as a passenger-carrying vehicle but the complainant got the vehicle registered as a private one and they were unable to process the claim because the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle.
The counsel further pleaded that there had been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

No comments:

Post a Comment