United india insurance co.ltd registration#
The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the insurer while observing that on 28-07-2011 (date of the incident) the vehicle’s temporary registration had expired and relying upon two previous orders of the NCDRC had concluded that if at the time of theft, the vehicle was not registered then the claim was not payable to the complainant. The insurer’s position before the District Forum was that till the incidence of theft, the complainant’s vehicle was not registered which was in violation of conditions of insurance policy the insurer therefore requested for dismissal of the complaint. Aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Shri Ganganagar (hereafter the “District Forum”) for a direction that the insurer ought to pay him the sum insured for the vehicle with rent amount of ₹1,40,000/- and also claimed relief for mental agony and costs of litigation.Ħ. (iii) The complainant left the vehicle unattended outside the guesthouse in violation of the policy conditions.ĥ. (ii) The temporary registration of the vehicle expired on 19-07-2011 and the respondent did not get the vehicle permanently registered and (i) Intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the insurer after delay which was in violation of the policy condition. The insurance claim, however was repudiated by order dated 23-01-2013 on three grounds: The respondent claimed the loss, from the appellant/insurer. However, on 30-09-2011 the police lodged a final report stating that the vehicle was untraceable.Ĥ. He lodged a first information report (FIR) on 29-07-2011 with PS Ratanada, Jodhpur alleging commission of offences under Section 379, IPC. When the respondent awoke in the morning, he found that the Bolero car had been stolen. Whilst there, his vehicle was parked outside the guest house premises. On 28-07-2011 the complainant went to Jodhpur for business purposes and stayed in Geeta Guest House at night.
As the respondent/complainant was engaged in business as a private contractor, for business purposes he had to be outside the city. The temporary registration of the vehicle, however, expired on 19-07-2011.ģ. The vehicle had a temporary registration (No. The respondent-complainant obtained an insurance polic圓 from the insurer for his Bolero car, somewhere in Punjab, though he was a resident of Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. In the impugned order, the NCDRC dismissed the appellant’s revision petition, that challenged the order2 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (hereafter “the State Commission”).Ģ. The appellant (hereby “insurer”) questions the judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 (“hereafter the NCDRC”).
Counsel for parties were heard, with their consent, for final disposal of the appeal.
0 kommentar(er)
