9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Insurance claim rejection based on breach of policy terms; Interpretation of insurance policy terms for vehicle use; Application of legal principles in insurance claims for theft of vehicle.
In this case, the appellant's insurance claim was rejected by the Insurance Company on the grounds that the vehicle, insured for personal use, was being used as a taxi at the time of theft, violating the terms of the insurance policy. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which upheld the rejection. The State Commission, however, relying on precedents, directed the appellant to pay 75% of the sum insured to the respondent on a non-standard basis. The National Commission, on appeal, upheld this decision, stating that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes and reimbursement should be granted on a non-standard basis. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, found that in cases of theft of a vehicle, the nature of use cannot be a basis for repudiating the claim. The Court upheld the decision of the State Commission and the National Commission, directing the appellant to pay the respondent 75% of the sum insured. The Court emphasized that in cases of theft, breach of policy conditions is not relevant, and the Insurance Company must indemnify the owner as per the comprehensive policy. The Court found no fault with the decisions of the lower commissions and dismissed the appeal, directing each party to bear their own costs.
|
