The National Insurance Co Ltd (NICL) has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay a policy holder insured amount of Rs 1.3 lakh for a stolen car along with compensation of Rs 15,000 for rejecting his claim on the ground that the driver had claimed to be the owner of the vehicle in the FIR.
Â
Â
Observing that the plea of the insurance company was “not according to law and has got no merit”, the Central District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pointed out to the NICL that sale of the vehicle was incomplete and the absolute ownership right had not been obtained by the driver.
“The sale of the vehicle was incomplete and the absolute ownership right had not been obtained by Dayal Singh Negi (complainant’s driver) and as such, insurance interest of the complainant did not cease. The repudiation of the claim is based only one ground that the complainant… did not have interest in the vehicle as he had sold the vehicle.
“We found that the plea of the insurance company is not according to law and has got no merit. By repudiating the claim, the insurance company has caused deficiency in service,” the forum held.
The order of the forum came on the plea of Amarjeet Singh, who had said he was the owner of a TATA Indica car insured with NICL for the period of January 2007 to January 2009.
He had said that the car was stolen from his driver’s home in Fazalpur here between 9.00pm to 4.30am of 27-29 May, 2008.
The insurance company had rejected Singh’s claim saying his driver claimed to be owner of the stolen car in the FIR.
Rejecting the NICL’s contention, the bench presided by B B Chaudhary had observed that as Negi had not paid the full consideration for sale of the car, it.. cannot be said that the absolute ownership right had been transferred in his favour.
The forum directed NICL to pay the insured amount of Rs 1.3 lakh along with compensation of Rs 15,000 and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation. …
