The company must pay the claim even if the vehicle is sold to a third party | Bangalore News

0


[ad_1]

Bangalore: State consumer court upheld district consumer forum instruction to insurer to clear Bangalore woman’s 1.4 lakh insurance claim for stolen motorcycle . The insurer had denied his claim, saying the vehicle’s insurance policy was still in the name of the original owner and had not been transferred to him.Liberté Videocon Assurance Générale Ltée had appealed the verdict of June 30, 2020 of a consumer forum in Bengaluru district ordering that the insured value of the vehicle – Rs 1,37,824 – be paid with interest to Sheela shantharaj, 57, from Kuvempunagar, with the exception of Rs 10,000 for damages and Rs 5,000 for legal costs. Sheela bought a Bajaj KTM Duke 200 motorcycle on April 27, 2017 from its original owner Mahesh P by paying Rs 1.5 lakh. On June 2, 2017, the motorcycle was stolen from her home and she filed a complaint with the Chandra Layout Police. With the vehicle covered by an active insurance policy in the name of the original owner until September 26, 2017, Sheela approached the insurer, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Ltd, with a claim for the stolen bicycle. But despite an active policy in place, the insurance company denied her claim, stating that the vehicle had not yet been transferred to her name and that she had not requested a transfer of insurance until the moment. of theft. The woman then went to a local consumer court, which ruled in her favor. He ordered the company to pay compensation of Rs 15,000 for the delay, in addition to granting him the insurance claim of Rs 1,37,824.Alleging that the local court had erred in its judgment, Liberty Videocon General Insurance appealed to Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission October 22, 2020. The judges noted, however, that at the date of the theft, the vehicle was under insurance coverage and the complainant urged the firm to settle the claim and also filed a complaint with the police. In addition, she had requested the RTO for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the position taken by the insurer that there is no contractual relationship between her and them cannot be accepted and they cannot reject the claim. of the assignee, because there was always active insurance coverage. The judges further observed that, although the woman made no request to the opposing party, she did apply to the RTO for a transfer. Therefore, there was no negligence on his part as long as valid insurance coverage was present, either on behalf of the original owner or on behalf of the assignee. Under these circumstances, the refusal to claim the money is illegal and the order made by the district commission stands, the judges said in their decision of September 7, 2021.

FacebookTwitterLinkedinE-mail

end of article

(This story was not edited by timesofindia.com and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed that we have subscribed to.)

[ad_2]

Share.

Leave A Reply