Bengaluru: The State Consumer Court has enforced the direction of the Regency Consumer Forum to the insurance company to clear the insurance claim of Rs 1.4 Lakh a Bengaluru woman against her stolen motorbike.
The insurer has refused his claim, said the vehicle insurance policy was still in the name of the first owner and had not been moved to him.
Liberty Videocon General Insurance Ltd has appealed Verdict Forum 20020 Bengaluru District.
Damage and RS 5,000 towards litigation fees.
Sheela bought a Bajaj motorcycle KTM Duke 200 on April 27, 2017 from the original owner Mahesh P by paying Rs 1.5 lakh.
On June 2, 2017, the motorcycle was stolen from his residence and he filed a complaint with the Chandra layout police.
With a vehicle carrying an active insurance policy on behalf of the original owner until September 26, 2017, Sheela approaches the insurance company, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Ltd, for claims for stolen bicycles.
But despite active policies, insurance companies rejected their claims, stating that the vehicle had not been transferred in his name and he failed to submit a transfer of insurance until theft.
Furthermore, the woman approached a local consumer court, which put it aside.
It ordered the company to pay the compensation of RS 15,000 for delays, regardless of giving insurance claims of Rs 1,37,824.
Claiming that the local court was wrong in his assessment, Liberty Videocon General Insurance appealed to the consumer of the state of Karnataka.
Hinning the Company for Settlement of Claims and also filed a police complaint.
Furthermore, he has asked RTO to transfer vehicle ownership and holder taken by insurance companies that there is no pritnah contract between him and they cannot be accepted and they cannot reject the transfer claim, because there is still active insurance coverage.
Judges further observed that even though the woman did not provide any application to the opposite party, she did implement RTO to transfer.
Therefore, there is no negligence in its part during valid insurance protection, both on behalf of the original owner, or on behalf of transferes.
In circumstances, the refusal of illegal claim money and orders forwarded by the District Commission was established, the judges stated in their decision on September 7, 2021.
The company told to pay claims even if the vehicle is sold to the 3rd party
