Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.06 seconds)United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manjeet Kaur & Ors on 11 May, 2011
11. Annexure R-3 another surveyor Mr. Vinod Bhan reported that total amount assessed was Rs.3,06,317/- and after deduction net amount was assessed as Rs.2,95,487/-. It was abundantly clear that surveyor was under pressure of OP No.1 insurance company to asses the loss of the car in question below 75% of the IDV so that it could not be treated as a total loss case. There are some ambiguities in the report of the surveyor, which is on record for example total amount assessed was Rs.3,06,317/- and after deduction net amount assessed was Rs.2,95,487/-. It means that the complainant's vehicle suffered total loss in the said accident. Nobody can spent huge amount of Rs.5,52,000/- on the car repair having IDV value of Rs.5,00,000/- as per insurance policy. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the complainantplaced on record authority of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision petition No.2382 of 2015 titled United India Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Manjeet Kaur &Ors decided on 04.12.2015, it was held that IDV shall be treated as a market value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss of constructive total loss claims, which is relevant in the case in hand.
M/S Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Tata Aig Generla Insurance Company Ltd on 9 November, 2022
In Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs TATA AIG General Insurance (CA No. 8249 of 2022, date of judgment: November, 9, 2022), for example the insurance company insured after due inspection, a shop loacated in a basement under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, despite the fact that the policy specifically excluded basements. Subsequently, following a fire, when the policyholder made a claim, the insurer repudiated it on the basis of the exclusion clause!
While ruling in favour of the consumer, the apex court observed that first and foremost, the insurer did not bring the exclusion clause to the notice of the consumer. And then, despite having knowledge of the exclusion clause, it insured the basement and received the premium benefits. After this, repudiating the policyholder's claim on the basis of the exclusion clause was certainly an unfair trade practice. "This view is fortified by the finding that the exclusion clause is an unfair term, going against the very object of the contract, making it otherwise un-executable from its inception," the apex court said.
1