Page 49 - Insurance Times September 2021

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 vehicle v/s
was given by complainant to the respondent on 13.05.2016
i.e. after three days. The FIR of theft of the vehicle was Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd.
lodged on 25.06.2016. As the intimation of loss due to theft
was not given to the Respondent immediately, the claim The complaint was regarding deduction made from the car
was repudiated by the Respondent under Condition No. 1 repairing claim after accidental damage. Claim made for
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
Redressal Deptt., the higher authorities had considered to after the consent of the complainant. The amounts de-
settle the claim on sub-standard basis for Rs.18,750/- (i.e. ducted towards compulsory excess and salvage were found
75 %) after deducting Rs.6250/-. The vehicle was stolen on to be in order.
10.05.2016. The complainant had lodged the FIR on
25.06.2016. The insured ought to have had lodged the com- The complaint failed to succeed.
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

The complainant had not bothered to lodge an intimation v/s
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 in- claim for owndamage of the vehicle was not paid stating
form 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

The Insurance Times, September 2021 49