Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSUMER FORUM Arguements
CONSUMER FORUM Arguements
CONSUMER FORUM Arguements
Ranvirsinh Rajendrasi
Complainant
Zala
..................................
..................
No
1,
Iffco-Tokio
General
Insurance
Our Contentions:
1.
2.
insurance policy.
The Policy Condition No: 4 doesnt expressly state that
the Company has no liability in case of theft of unlocked
3.
vehicles.
The said condition which the Opponent is using as a tool
to shun their legal liability is actually in the form of
advisory, and it is general in nature.
Every person of
5.
6.
rightful claims.
It has come on the record that the stolen vehicle was
properly parked in the tin roofed court yard of the
insurers house, specially made for the purpose of
safeguarding the vehicles from sun light, heat, dust,
7.
8.
9.
also.
10. Moreover, if take the contention of the Opponent
Company to be true then it would plainly mean that if
the Complainant had locked the bike then the theft
the
Complainant
the
claim
amount,
the
Limited
v.
Narayan
Prasad
Appaprasad
Pathak
reported in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question
was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in
a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did
not have a proper driving license and met with an accident.
While granting claim on non-standard basis the National
Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the
Description
Percentage of
settlement
(i)
Under declaration
of licensed
carrying capacity
Deduct 3 years'
differene in
premium from the
amount of claim
or deduct 25% of
claim amount,
whichever is
higher.
(ii)
Overloading of
vehicles beyond
licensed carrying
capacity
(iii)
Thus,
in
the
light
of
the
above
mentioned
Judicial
(Gulabkhan
Advocate
I.
for