Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

Held : Rejection of the claim just because of the driving licence (transport) was not inforce at the time of accident is not justified. The insurer ignored the fact that Mr. P.Rama Rao was having a driving licence (transport) from 1984 which was apparentlyrenewed with effect from 18.10.2003 without any adverse remark. Hence, the rejectionof claim on technical grounds causes injustice to the complainant. The claim admittedon ex-gratia basis for the total amount as recommended by the surveyor.Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.003.0426Shri A. Purender ReddyVsM/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 1.8.2005Complainant purchased a comprehensive motor policy to cover his car for the period6.7.2001 to 5.7.2002 from the respondent company. Since this was a fresh insuranceproposal was sought. The complainant declared that the claim was pending on thepolicy for the period 6.7.2000 to 5.7.2001 with his earlier insurer M/s. Orientalinsurance Co. Ltd. As such policy was issued by imposing 10 % malus as per thetariff. The policy was renewed for a further period of one year i.e., 2002 - 03 on5.1.2004 He addressed a letter to the insurer enclosing a renewal notice issued by hisearlier insurer wherein he was eligible for 20 % No Claim Bonus as such he claimedrefund for the year 2001 - 02 and 2002 - 03. He contended that he with drew the claimand was therefore allowed a discount. The insurer contended that the renewal noticedated 28.06.2001 was received by them only on 5.1.2004. The policy was under writtenbased on the complainant’s declaration in the proposal form and refund was soughtafter expiry of two years hold. Policy was issued on the basis of declaration made inthe proposal form, which forms part of the contract. The complainant did not withdrewthe claim volunatarily but allowed the period to lapse. Withdrawal was not informed tothe respondent company no lapse observed on the insurers part.Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.008.066Shri Mohd. Jeelani BashaVsM/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 30.8.2005The complainant’s vehicle insured under motor package policy for the period 3.2.2004to 2.2.2005. The said vehicle met with an accident on 22.4.2004 resulting in heavydamages to the right side of the vehicle. Insurer caused for an investigation regardingthe driver at the time of accident. It was revealed that the driver of the vehicle wascleaner who did not have a driving licence. As such the claim was repudiated. Insuredcontended that the driver had a valid driving licence and this fact is evident in the FIR.Cleaner was sleeping behind driver’s seat and as such was not driver. Insurerconteded that keeping in mind nature of damage to the vehicle the cleaner ought tohave driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Cleaner’s driving licence was notproduced to them despite several reminders. Since there was violation of policycondition, the claim merited repudiation.Held : Photographs of the accident clearly revealed that the impact was entirely on theright of the vehicle. The driver escaped unhurt which is very improbable in such an