[ad_1]
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the National Insurance Company Limited to pay Vahida Ismail, a resident of Bellare village of Sullia Taluk of Dakshina Kannada, ₹4.06 lakh with 6% interest per annum, for the damage to latter’s vehicle following accident on December 3, 2016.
In the judgement dated September 12, the Commission, comprising of President Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh, Judicial Member Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar and Member M. Divyashree, said the interest of 6% will be from the date of repudiation of the claim till realisation. The insurance company was also directed to pay ₹10,000 for deficiency of service and ₹ 5,000 towards litigation cost.
Vahida Ismail proposed insurance coverage of ₹7.4 lakh for her Toyota Innova vehicle for the period between December 2, 2016 and December 1, 2017. She presented to National Insurance the premium amount of ₹ 23,804 in the form of cheque dated November 30,2016, which was drawn on Corporation Bank, Sullia. When the cheque was presented, the bank returned it to the insurer (National Insurance) with endorsement “Drawers signature differs”.
Then Ms. Ismail on December 3, 2016 furnished her latest specimen signature to the Bank, which uploaded the same to the system on December 6, 2016. The banker asked the insurer on December 12, 2016 to represent the cheque for clearance and it was cleared on December 27, 2016.
Ms. Ismail’s vehicle suffered extensive damage following motor accident near Devarakolli, near Sampaje outpost, Sullia Taluk, on December 3, 2016. Authorised service station estimated the cost of repair at ₹ 5.43 lakh, while licensed surveyor and loss assessor M.K.Vazhunnavar estimated the loss at ₹ 4.15 lakh.
Ms. Ismail questioned repudiation her claim before Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Commission, which on December 20,2019, directed the insurance firm and the bank to pay ₹3.06 lakh and ₹1 lakh respectively with 6% per annum. The bank filed an appeal against this order before the State Commission.
Partly upholding the appeal, the State Commission said by not cancelling the policy soon after return of cheque the insurer company impliedly endorsed the action of the bank and there is no ground to repudiate the claim.
“For the reasons best known to them and in particular OP (opposite party) No.1 insurer impliedly concede the problem faced by the banker and did not proceed to cancel the policy issued in the name of complainant (Ms. Ismail) covering risk for Rs.7,40,000/- for the period from December 2, 2016 to December 1, 2017,” the State Commission said. It dismissed the complaint against the bank without any cost.
[ad_2]
Source link
