Insurance firm told to pay Rs 20 lakh for rejecting claim for gutted goods
The state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed the United India Insurance to pay Rs 20.27 lakh to a Sector 7-based company for denying the claim for goods destroyed in a fire in the vehicle carrying them.chandigarh Updated: Aug 30, 2014 20:25 IST
The state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed the United India Insurance to pay Rs 20.27 lakh to a Sector 7-based company for denying the claim for goods destroyed in a fire in the vehicle carrying them.
The commission has also directed the insurance firm to pay 9 percent interest and Rs 15,000 as cost of litigation
Savikar Plyboards, a company dealing in export of furniture and handcraft, had moved the commission after insurance company had rejected its claim.
The complainant said they had taken an open insurance cover from the company to secure the risk of all types of furniture and allied items whilst transporting them anywhere in the world.
It said in January 2012 a truck was booked for carrying the consignment containing 27 packages from Chandigarh to New Delhi. The consignment was loaded in a truck which caught fire in the parking lot due to short-circuit in the electrical wire passing over the truck and the consignment got burnt.
Despite assessment by the surveyor about the loss, the insurance company lingered on the claim though they paid the insurance claim to the truck owner.
The Savikar Plyboards said their claim regarding the loss of goods in fire was rejected.
The insurance company in its reply said after the occurrence of the alleged that cause of loss was not established as claimed by the Insured. It was further pointed out that the truck was left unattended by the driver and there was a gross negligence on the part of the Insured in this regard.
The commission on August 26 said, “The insurance company illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the complainant's claim on the basis of the investigation report which is not correct. The rejection of the claim clearly amounts to deficiency in rendering service, and indulgence in unfair trade practices.”