Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

the vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle at the time of accident. The complainantcontended that the vehicle was not used either for hire or for reward. His close friendswanted to witness the birthday celebrations of Shri Chinna Jeeyer Swamy atVijayawada and hence gave the vehicle to them. The insurers contended that theirpanel investigator confirmed that the inmates gave statements that the vehicle wasindeed hired. It was held that the occupants of the jeep at the time of accident, statedthe entire trip was arranged by one Hari Swamy who even bore the fuel charges.However, the investigator failed to examine the crucial evidence of Shri Hari Swamyand the reasons given by the investigator for his failure to record the statement of ShriSwamy do not carry conviction. Since the insurer failed to prove satisfactorily that thevehicle was taken for hire or reward at the time of accident, they are directed to honourthe claim and pay as per terms and conditions of the policy.Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.004.0429Smt. B. Vimala ReddyVsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 12.5.2005The complainant’s vehicle bearing Regn. No AP - 09AA 0447 covered under a motorpackage policy with the above insurer for the period 1.8.2003 to 31.7.2004 met with anacccident on 4.5.2004. The complainant submitted an estimate of repairs /replacements for Rs. 2,62,933/-. However, the respondent company’s surveyorassessed the damages for Rs. 55,882/- on repair basis.The complainant contended that she has insured her vehicle for a sum insured of Rs. 2lakhs and as such was eligible for the full amount. The insurer contended that thesurveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 55,882/- on repair basis after discussions with therepairers. The complainant submitted the repair bills amounting to Rs. 1,41,000/- onlyon the eve of the hearing.It was held that the insurers would process and pay the claim having regard to the billssubmitted vis-a-vis the damages to the vehicle.Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.002.0425Smt. B. Ratna KumariVsNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 12.5.2005The Respondent company issued a motor package policy to one Mr. N. Sukumar tocover vehicle No. AP 16U 1485 for the period 1.3.2004 to 28.2.2005. The said vehiclemet with an accident on 6.7.2004. While the claim being processed it was obseved thatthe ownership of the vehicle as per R. C. Book was in the name of the complainantw.e.f. 27.3.2004. The complainant, the registered owner of the vehicle did not transferthe insurance to her name as on the date of accident. Insurers contended that it was aclear violatation of General Regulation No. 17 of the Motor Tariff.It was held that the Own Damage Section of the Motor Policy is a contract between theinsured and the insurer and the former must have insurable interest in the property