Southern States - Tamil Nadu-Chennai   

Insurance firm asked to pay compensation to car owner

By K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI OCT. 25. If a driver, to whom a vehicle is handed over by its owner, absconds with it, it is a clear case of theft, a consumer forum has said.

Directing an insurance company to pay Rs.1.50 lakhs towards the policy amount to the owner of a car, which was dishonestly taken away by the driver, the forum said the police should have registered the first information report only under Section 378 (theft) and not under 406 Indian Penal Code (criminal breach of trust). The forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 1,000 as costs to the complainant.

A. Gandhi of MGR Nagar here filed a petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), stating he had insured a tourist taxi for Rs.1.50 lakhs for one year from June 2001. The vehicle was sent through a driver to a travel agency for hire purposes, but the driver did not report to the agency. On his complaint, the police, after investigation, issued a "non-traceable certificate" to him. When a claim was made with the United India Insurance Company, Rattan Bazaar branch, it was repudiated on the ground that it was not covered under the scope of the insurance policy. Because of the company's refusal, he suffered loss and mental agony and was not able to repay debts. The repudiation was illegal, he said.

The company said the vehicle was lost on July 3, 2001, but the FIR was registered only after nine days. The complainant's case did not come under the definition of theft. There was no deficiency in service.

The forum Bench, consisting of the president, K. Ramaswamy, and the members, V.M. Thandapani and Nagammai Karuppiah, said a perusal of documents showed that the repudiation of the claim was not lawful. The repudiation letter was just a one-line statement and no reason was given. Though the complaint was registered by the police under Section 406 IPC and investigation treated as closed as `undetectable', the complaint showed that it was a clear case of theft. The forum referred to Section 378 IPC and said the opposite party was liable as the insurance policy covered theft also. The opposite party had no defence to disprove the complainant's claim that he had entrusted the vehicle to a driver and that he had absconded with the vehicle. It had no evidence to dispute the FIR. As the claim had been unlawfully repudiated, the complainant would have suffered financial loss and mental agony, the forum said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Sewage discharged into Mylapore temple tank
• Insurance firm asked to pay compensation to car owner
• Toothless laws leave child labour a 'weak' offence
• Another low pressure likely
• Road accidents claim 3 lives
• Two workers die inhaling poisonous gas
• Fishermen demand restoration of well on Marina Beach
• Woman, daughter killed in Vadapalani fire
• AIADMK functionary's house burgled

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu