Consumer Forum rejects around Rs 12 lakh claim on stolen jeep
Thane : The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum (TDCRF) has rejected a claim of Rs 12 lakh on a stolen jeep ruling that it cannot entertain such matters as the vehicle was put to commercial use for serving tourists.
Forum President Manohar Y Mankar and members Madhuri Vishwarupe and ND Kadam agreed to the argument by the respondent Insurance company which also citied several rulings of the various courts to substantiate their stand for rejection of the claim.
In his complaint, Ramesh Kale of Vasai said he had taken insurance for his jeep with United india Insurance Company and paid a premium of Rs 26,186 and the Insured value of the Jeep was Rs. 6,59,585.
According to the complainant it was on November 07, 2006 he had given the jeep to a garage in Nalla Sopara for repairs and next day it was found that the jeep had been stolen.
The jeep was never traced thereafter, he told the forum and said that he had lodged a claim with the Insurance company which rejected the same.
The complainant stated that there was deficiency in service by the Insurance company and lodged a claim of Rs 6,59,585 towards cost of the jeep, with 12 per cent interest; Rs 50,000 towards mental worry and Rs 91,368 for delayed payment and penalty to the finance agency which had financed for the vehicle; Rs 3,60,000 as he could not do his business (as a tourist operator) and Rs 20,000 towards the legal expenses.
Making his submission on behalf of the Insurance company A K Tiwari pointed out several lapses on part of the claimant and urged the Forum to reject the claim, which the Forum did in its ruling.
The Forum in its order noted that the complainant had lodged the police complaint of the theft on November 20, 2006 which was late by 12 days. Also, he intimated the insurance company in July 2007 which was late by seven months.
The counsel for insurance company pointed out that there was violation of the insurance policy and the complainant ought to have informed the police and insurer immediately which he had not done.
In the order the Forum further noted that the complainant had sought Rs 3,60,000 towards loss of business on the tourist services which clearly indicates that he was using the vehicle for commericial purposes and not for his personal use.
As per several rulings of the Fora and courts the claim on the theft of vehicle which had been used for commercial purpose cannot be entertained and hence the claim is being rejected, the Forum ordered.