Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

submitted by complainant is double the insured value. Considering the pecuniaryproblem of complainant and extensive damage of vehicle Hon’ble Ombudsman directedthe Insurer to pay Rs. 300,000/- to the complainant on total loss basis.Bhubaneswar Ombudsman CentreCase No. I. O. O. / B.B.S.R. / 11.004.0023Mrs. Kiranbala NayakVsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 24.5.2005Complainant’s Ashok Leyland bus bearing No. OR - 02 A - 9097 was insured with theUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mancheswar Branch for the period from 01.12.2001 to30.11.2002. The said vehicle met with an accident on 09.06.2002. Insured complainantlodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 48,723 final surveyor assessed the loss anamount of Rs. 12,800/-. Insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that driver ShriBiswanath Sahu had no effective Driving Licence at the time of accident.The parties was heard on 19th April, 2005.The Complainant submitted that the she hademployed Shri Sahoo as driver verifying the D/L no : 228 / 2000 issued by R.T.O.,Bhubaneswar. The Insurer submitted that original D/L issued by RTO, Balasore videD/L No. : 724 / 91 is a fake one on verification. But subsequent renewal done by RTO,Bhubaneswar was in order.Insurance Ombudsman directed the insurer to pay Rs. 12,800/- on the basis of Apexcourt decision on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Vs. Lehru & Otrhers (2003) 3 SCC388) and National Insurnace Co. Ltd. - Vs. Swaran Singh & others (SLPCC) 9027 of2003.Bhubaneswar Ombudsman CentreCase No. I. O. O. / B.B.S.R. / 14.005.0076Shri Aloke Kumar SahooVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 26.5.2005The Complainant had insured his Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. OR - 02 Z -8595 with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Vehicle met with an accident on15.08.2004. Surveyor of Shri B. K. Mohapatra surveyed the vehicle in the garage andadvised the complainant to repair the vehicle except the body shell which can berepaired. Repairer wrote to the complainant that body shell can not be repaired onlyreplacement can bring back the vehicle to its original position. As there is no unanimitybetween the surveyor and repairer regarding the body shell repairing and replacementcomplainant’s claim settlement was delayed.During the Hearing insurer agreed to allow the replacement of body shell with adeduction of Rs. 15,000/- towards salvage.Hon’ble Ombudsman directed the Insurer to replace the body shell and retain thesalvage with them.Bhubaneswar Ombudsman CentreCase No. I. O. O. / B.B.S.R. / 11.005.0019
Smt. Santilata AcharyaVsOriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 08.6.2005Complainant’s Tata Mini bus bearing No OR - 06 C - 9431 was insured with OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd., Angul Branch. During the Policy Period, the bus met with anaccident on 10.07.2003 due to which conductor of bus died and passengers got injured.The surveyor has assessed the loss for Rs. 45,000/-. Insurer repudiated the claim onthe ground that bus was carrying 80 passengers against carrying capacity of 44 anddue to that over loading the accident happened. During the Hearing Complainant statedthat accident happened due to lost of balance of driver while negotiating a cowsuddenly straying into the road. Insurer submitted a news paper cutting of Samaj Oriyadaily which stated that there were 80 passengers on the board at the time of accident.Investigator of insurer stated in his report that there were 50 to 60 passengers as hecame to know from the local people but he has not furnished the name of the personshe had contracted no recorded their statements.On verification of R.C. book it is known that but was permitted to carry 44 passengersbut insurer in his policy stated that bus can carry exceeding 36 passengers but notexceeding 60 passengers.Hon’ble Ombudsman directed the insurer to pay Rs. 45,000/- with 6 % interest as theinvestigator had stated in his report 60 passengers were there at that time which hasbeen permitted by the insurer in their policy copy.Bhubaneswar Ombudsman CentreCase No. I. O. O. / B.B.S.R. / 14.005.0069Shri Basudev DashVsOriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 14.6.2005Insured complainant insured his Tata Mini bearing No : OR 02 - AB - 1057 with OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd. On 17.07.2004 the vehicle met with an accident near Masthura ofGanjam district. Surveyor assessed the loss for Rs. 48,000/- against an estimate of Rs.90,068/-. Insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that driver did not have theeffective driving licence.During Hearing insurer submitted that on verification of D / L of Shri Kedar Behera atAhmedabad RTO who first issued D / L No : 38391 / 77 was fake as 1997 series of D /L was six digit number. There was official letter from the concerned RTO regardingthis.The Insurer tried to verify the Driving Licence which was renewed by RTO, Chhatrpurbearing the Licence No. 834 / 81 stands in the name of Kedar Behera. RTO,Chhatrapur vide their letter dated 20.09.2004 stated that relevant record of said D / Lis torn so, they can not issue a certified copy.Insured complainant was awarded Rs. 48,000/- along with 6 % interest insurer hadsignally failed to prove that D / L No : 38391 / 77 / 834 / 81 issued by RTO Ahmedabadand RTO Chhatrapur is fake.Bhubaneswar Ombudsman Centre
Page 1 and 2: Vehicle Insurance PolicyAhmedabad O
Page 3 and 4: Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No.
Page 5 and 6: Institution of Ombudmsman was neith
Page 7 and 8: arose prior to application of New T
Page 9: accepted the payment of penalty, an
Page 13 and 14: Insured complainant Shri Pravin Kum
Page 15 and 16: Shri Subhash AggarwalVsNational Ins
Page 17 and 18: was found to be false. He contended
Page 19 and 20: FACTS : Shri Luv Puri got his car b
Page 21 and 22: favour and the transfer was effecte
Page 23 and 24: for the period from 20.11.01 to 19.
Page 25 and 26: complainant was using his car for h
Page 27 and 28: Otherwise, they should pay the admi
Page 29 and 30: proposed for insurance. In this cas
Page 31 and 32: Case No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.005.006S
Page 33 and 34: accident. The complainant did not p
Page 35 and 36: Held : The complainant stated that
Page 37 and 38: Award Dated 3.5.2005The Complainant
Page 39 and 40: National Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Da
Page 41 and 42: Award Dated 28.9.2005The complaint
Page 43 and 44: Shri Akhileswar C. ChaurasiaVsThe N
Page 45 and 46: Section 66 and also 149 (2) of the
Page 47 and 48: surveyor had approved the same, but
Page 49 and 50: In the facts and circumstnces, the
Page 51 and 52: cheque. Not satisfied, the Insured
Page 53 and 54: Aggrieved by the decision the Insur

Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?