Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Award Dated 9.5.2005Mrs. A. G. Sivaraman purchased a car from the seller which was covered under thepolicy issued by New India, Chennai. The Vehicle has been transferred in the name ofthe buyer in the R. C. book on 28.06.2004. The Policy was transferred in the name ofthe purchaser on 7.7.2004. The vehicle met with an accident on 3.7.2004 (before thename transfer was effected in Insurance) and the insurer repudiated the claim that onthe date of the accident the purchaser had no insurable interest.It was observed by this forum that the R. C. was changed in the name of the purchaseron 28.6.2004 and the policy was transferred within the stipulation of 14 days from thedate of sale, as reflected in the R. C. The name transfer was also effected in theInsurance. Hence, direction was given to the insurer to process the claim and settle itwith the purchaser.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 11.05.1427 / 2004 - 05Shri V. GanesanVsThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 16.5.2005Shri V. Ganesan complainant, insured his vehicle TN 09 AH 3505 Cargo Carrier withOriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai for the period 20.8.2004 to 19.8.2005. Thevehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2004, FIR was filed and survey also conducted.The Insurer have repudiated the claim that the driver Mr. Karunanithi is not havingvalid Badge authorized to drive Goods Carrying. The Insurer also mentioned as per MVAct Badge is one of the basic requirements. The Insured paid advance monies toDriving School on 13.12.2004 for securing badge but there was delay in remitting themoney to RTO by the Driving School. The Insured confirmed that there is no permit isrequired for the vehicle.On scrutiny of the papers it is established that the vehicle was LMV and the driver washolding LMV licence and badge for driving transport vehicle has been endorsed on18.2.2005. Though the vehicle used for transporting goods, it was admitted positionthat it does not require permit. The Supreme Court held where the vehicle is LMV andno proof to show that there was a permit for the vehicle, LMV licence would suffice andeven transport vehicle endorsement is not necessary. The contention of the insurer isthat there is no badge on the date of accident, but the badge is only as addition on thebasis of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules with regard to knowledge of language, firstaid, etc., In recent consumer case the State Commission had held merely for absenceof badge a claim could not be repudiated when the driver otherwise held a validlicence. Therefore, the insurer were directed to process and settle the claim.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 11.03.1408 / 2004 - 05Mr. Parveen KothariVsThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 16.5.2005Mr. K. Raja insured his vehicle, Toyota qualis bearing Registration no. TN 04 W 7332with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai for a sum insured of Rs. 4,48,000/- for theperiod from 7.8.2002 to 6.8.2003 and sold the vehicle to Mr. Gnana Smabhandam on22.11.2002, who approached the insurer on 2.12.2002 for transfer of insurance in his
favour and the transfer was effected. The Vehicle met with an accident on 28.11.2002and Survey was conducted by licenced surveyor. The Insurer issued two work ordersdt. 19.6.2003 and 16.12.2003 to M/s Car Park, Ambattur. After carrying out the repairwork, re - inspection and satisfaction note from Mr. Gnana Sambhandam the vehiclewas released by the repairer and submitted the credit bill dt. 9.1.2004 to the insurer forpayment.The insurer diown the liability on 29.4.2004 addressing a letter to Mr. GnanaSambhandam, on the ground that the accident occurred on 28.11.2002, but theinsurance was transferred in favour or purchaser only on 2.12.2002 The Insurerpointed out that the insured had not revealed the damage to the vehicle at the time oftransfer. Further, the insurer pleaded that the vehicle was purchased on 28.10.2002,whereas the transfer was effected only on 2.12.2002 and the number of days taken bythe purchaser for transferring the vehicle in his favour has crossed the allowable timelimit as per GR of Motor Tariff.The documents were perused by the forum. It is observed the loss was inspected bythe licenced surveyor and the work order was issued after 7 months from the date ofaccident and there was sufficient time to analyse the claim papers. As per the terms ofwork order the insurer is bound to settle the claim and the insurer could not go againstthe terms of reference of work orders. It is also established that the final paymenttowards purchase of the car was effected by the purchaser only on 24.11.2002 andhence the number of days as per GR 17 provision, as per Motor Tariff has to becounted only from this date of 24.11.2002. The transfer was effected on 2.12.2002which falls within 14 days from the date of sale on 24.12.2002. Hence, direction wasgiven to Insurer to process and settle the claim to the repairer.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 11.02.1018 / 2005 - 06Mrs. M. DeepakVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 21.6.2005The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office covered a vehicle bearingRegistration No. TN 07 Aa 2224 for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. Mr. M. Deepaksubmitted a proposal on 14.9.2004 and name transfer was effected. The Vehicle metwith an accident on 5.9.2004 (before the name transfer) and surveyor was deputed8.9.2004. The Survey Report was also obtained by the Insurer and as per the SurveyReport the Transport Authority, Chennai had transferred the ownership 3.9.2004 infavour of Mr. M. Deepak. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the groundthat on the date of accident 5.9.2004 the policy was not in the name of the claimant Mr.Deepak and he was not having insurable interest in the vehicle. The Insuredrepresented that the transfer of insurance of policy has been effected within 14 daysfrom 3.9.2004 allowable under the Motor Vehicle Act and hence the claim is payable.The Insurer represented that the Policy was in the name of original Owner Smt.Chandra Lakshmi Kanth and the vehicle was sold on 28.4.2004 to Mr. Satheesh Kumar(5 months before the date of accident.) As per the documents produced before theforum, it is observed that vehicle would have been passed on from Mr. Satish Kumar(who pruchased the vehicle from original owner) to Mr. Ashok as per delivery note dt.24.8.2004. The complainant has confirmed that he has puchased the vehicle from Mr.Ashok. Therefore, the vehicle was sold by the original owner (Mrs. Chandra LakshmiKant) to Mr. Satheesh Kumar, which changed hands to Mr. Ashok from whom the
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 and 10: accepted the payment of penalty, an
Page 11 and 12: Smt. Santilata AcharyaVsOriental In
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: FACTS : Shri Luv Puri got his car b
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?