Page 42 - Insurance Times March 2019

LEGAL

Vehicle Insurance

Complaint Ref. No. AHD-G-051-1718-0200 after receipt of grievance appeal, had gracefully settled the
claim on sub –standard basis by paying 75 % claim amount
Mr. Rajesh K. Parmar and paid it to the complainant.

V/s
In view of the foregoing, the complaint failed to succeed.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Complaint Ref:No.AHD-G-023-1617-1560
The Complainant’s Scooter was stolen on 10.05.2016 when
it was parked near his shop at Kamal Complex, I.O.C. Road, Ashish B. Monpura
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. The intimation of theft of ve- v/s
hicle was given by complainant to the respondent on
13.05.2016 i.e. after three days. The FIR of theft of the Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd.
vehicle was lodged on 25.06.2016. As the intimation of loss
due to theft was not given to the Respondent immediately, The complaint was regarding deduction made from the car
the claim was repudiated by the Respondent under Condi- repairing claim after accidental damage. Claim made for
tion No. 1 of the policy. Rs.19854/- was settled for RS.12381. The insurer could
prove that the amount was deducted towards the repair
After review of the claim on receiving appeal in Grievance for old damage. Moreover other amounts were settled af-
Redressal Deptt., the higher authorities had considered to ter the consent of the complainant. The amounts deducted
settle the claim on sub-standard basis for Rs.18,750/- (i.e. towards compulsory excess and salvage were found to be
75 %) after deducting Rs.6250/-. The vehicle was stolen on in order.
10.05.2016. The complainant had lodged the FIR on The complaint failed to succeed.
25.06.2016. The insured ought to have had lodged the com-
plaint as per the policy condition No.1 immediately The
insured had informed the insurance company after 3 days Complaint Ref:No.AHD-G-012-1617-1514
of the theft of the vehicle. Ravi Thakkar

v/s
The complainant had not bothered to lodge an intimation
of loss of the vehicle with the Insurer immediately even Cholamandalam M S General Ins. Co. Ltd.
after his coming to know about the loss. Further, the in-
sured had lodged FIR of the theft of the vehicle on The complainant had purchased a second hand car and the
25.6.2016 i.e. after 45 days. Hon’ble Supreme Court Ori- ownership of the vehicle was transferred in his name in the
ental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (Civil books of the RTO.on 24.11.5015 a day before the accident.
Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010) dismissed He informend the insurer on 24.11.2015 about the change
the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by of the ownership of the insured vehicle through SMS. The
the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to claim for owndamage of the vehicle was not paid stating
inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the that the policy covering the vehicle could not be endorsed
loss. The complainant had failed to give intimation of theft before the happening of the accident as the intimation for
immediately to the insurance company and police author- endorsement and the necessary payment for affecting the
ity as per policy Condition No. 1.The insurance company, change was done on 27.11.2015, after the accident. The

42 The Insurance Times, March 2019