Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Synopsis 3, NCDRC

    Uploaded by

    devanshi jain
    The petitioner filed this revision petition against an order dismissing his appeal regarding an insurance claim. The key facts are that the petitioner's car was stolen on December 29, 2011 but the FIR was registered on January 2, 2012. He notified the insurance company by phone on December 30, 2011 but submitted the written claim on January 13, 2012. The issues are whether phone notification was sufficient given the distance between locations, and if the petitioner was at fault for the police registering the FIR three days later. The national commission dismissed the revision petition, finding that the petitioner did not submit the written claim immediately as required by the policy terms, so the insurance company legally refused the claim due to the delay in notification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Synopsis 3, NCDRC

    Uploaded by

    devanshi jain
    43 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed this revision petition against an order dismissing his appeal regarding an insurance claim. The key facts are that the petitioner's car was stolen on December 29, 2011 but the FIR was registered on January 2, 2012. He notified the insurance company by phone on December 30, 2011 but submitted the written claim on January 13, 2012. The issues are whether phone notification was sufficient given the distance between locations, and if the petitioner was at fault for the police registering the FIR three days later. The national commission dismissed the revision petition, finding that the petitioner did not submit the written claim immediately as required by the policy terms, so the insurance company legally refused the claim due to the delay in notification.

    Original Title

    synopsis 3, NCDRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed this revision petition against an order dismissing his appeal regarding an insurance claim. The key facts are that the petitioner's car was stolen on December 29, 2011 but the FIR was registered on January 2, 2012. He notified the insurance company by phone on December 30, 2011 but submitted the written claim on January 13, 2012. The issues are whether phone notification was sufficient given the distance between locations, and if the petitioner was at fault for the police registering the FIR three days later. The national commission dismissed the revision petition, finding that the petitioner did not submit the written claim immediately as required by the policy terms, so the insurance company legally refused the claim due to the delay in notification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Synopsis 3, NCDRC

    Uploaded by

    devanshi jain
    The petitioner filed this revision petition against an order dismissing his appeal regarding an insurance claim. The key facts are that the petitioner's car was stolen on December 29, 2011 but the FIR was registered on January 2, 2012. He notified the insurance company by phone on December 30, 2011 but submitted the written claim on January 13, 2012. The issues are whether phone notification was sufficient given the distance between locations, and if the petitioner was at fault for the police registering the FIR three days later. The national commission dismissed the revision petition, finding that the petitioner did not submit the written claim immediately as required by the policy terms, so the insurance company legally refused the claim due to the delay in notification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SYNOPSIS

    This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2016 in Appeal No. 382/2015
    of the state commission, Rajasthan decided on 13.9.2017
    FACTS
    Facts leading to this Revision Petition are:-

     The complainant herein, Mr Shimbhu Singh Shekhawat, had insured his Maruti Alto car
    with cholamandalam MS General Insurance company from 19.06.2011 to 18.06.2012
     During the sustenance of the policy, the vehicle in question was stolen 29.12.2011. The
    FIR was lodged with the Pilani police station on 30.12.2011 and simultaneously the
    insurance company was informed telephonically.
     The FIR was registered on 02.01.2012 and thereafter the complainant filed the written
    claim papers on 13.01.2012 and the claim so filed was rejected by the opposite party.
    Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District forum-II, Jaipur.
     The district forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.
    2,30,000/ to the complainant along with an interest at the rate 10% per annum from
    06.06.2012. it further allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/ towards mental agony and
    cost of Rs. 5000/-.
     Being aggrieved the opposite party filed the first appeal before the state commission. the
    state commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the district forum. Hence
    the complainant filed a revision petition before the national commission

    ISSUES RAISED
    The issues that have been raised are as follows:-

     The office of the opposite party was located in Jaipur and complainant resided in
    chirawa, district- jhunjhunu, whereas the incident took place in pilani which is about 300
    KMs from Jaipur.in such kind of a situation the intimation could have been given trough
    telephone communication , Does the policy of the insurance company even prevails in
    such kind of circumstances ?
     The complaint was lodged by the complainant on 30.12.2011, but it was registered by the
    police station on 02.01.2012, does this account to the complainant’s mistake?

    ORDER
    The national commission concluded that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question
    was stolen on 29.12.2011 and as per the FIR the information of the offence was received
    at the police station on 02.01.2012 at 12:05 PM. Though the FIR clearly depicts the date
    30.12.2011, but there is no cogent evidence to show that it was presented on the same day
    and admittedly, it was registered on 02.02.2012. the court also rejected the second
    contention of the complainant that the telephonic message was sent to the insurance
    company on the same day as per the policy condition, but it was an obligation on the part
    of the complainant to give information in writing immediately upon the occurrence of the
    incident. It appears form the records that the complainant approached on 13.01.2012 first
    time along with the claim document to the opposite party. Thus it was terminated that the
    there has been a delay in filing the FIR as well as intimation to the opposite party. Thus,
    the refusal of the claim was legal as per the terms of the policy. Thus the revision petition
    was dismissed and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

    You might also like