Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed an insurance company to give an insurance claim amount of Rs6.76 lakh with 6% interest per annum which it had rejected on account of a trailer being re-registered and the driving license not being true. The commission further directed that Rs10,000 be paid towards litigation costs and said 9% interest (per annum) will be applicable if the amount is not given within 30 days.
The order dated Oct 7, 2022, (uploaded Dec 1) was given by SS Mhatre (president) and MP Kaskar (member) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Central Mumbai, on a complaint by RR Roadways Pvt Ltd against Future General Insurance Co Ltd.
RR Roadways had purchased a trailer that was registered with the Panvel RTO and insured with Future General for the period between Dec 1, 2017, to Nov 25, 2018. In Sep 2018, the trailer was loaded with iron coils to be transported from Nagpur to Taloja when it met with an accident when an unidentified unknown jeep came on the wrong side of the road towards the trailer. In the process of avoiding an accident, the driver lost control and it turned turtle. The trailer was damaged and the police were duly informed, after which the statement of the driver was recorded and a spot panchnama made. A claim was made thereafter by RR Roadways, but to date, it was neither cleared nor rejected despite a time frame for claims to be decided.
At the commission stage, the insurance company stated that it was not informed that the vehicle was re-registered in Raipur (Chandigarh) and that the policy was not transferred to the new registration number. It also said that the original driving license number of the driver of the vehicle was not provided; and that the company was justified in rejecting the claim
During the hearing, the commission observed that the dispute raised in the present complaint pertains to the complainant not informing the opposite party about the vehicle being re-registered and that the driving licence was not produced for verification. The commission said that it was not binding to inform about the changes in registration of the vehicle to the insurance company and the opposite party failed to prove that the complainant's driver was not holding an effective driving licence as it had not been issued by any competent licensing authority.
The DCDRC observed that the policy is in the name of RR Roadways and the certificate of registration at Chandigarh is also in the same name. It noted that though the registration of the vehicle had been transferred, nevertheless, the registered owner of the vehicle is still the complainant and its ownership has not been transferred. It directed that Future General reimburse the claim amount citing a deficiency in service.
