Insurance Policy speak with two tounges?
N.K.Assumi
(Querist) 03 April 2009
This query is : Resolved
Motor Vehicle (TATA SUMO) Insurance policy for third party stipulates as under:
1. Permium of Rs.16,500/-
2.Seating capacity: 10+1
3.Limitation as to use:
Use only for social domestic and pleasure and for the Insured's own business.
This policy does not cover the use for hire or reward or for organized racing pacemaking etc.
Cerificate issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter X & XI.
Accident occured during the validity of contract and passenger injured with spinal cord.
STA issued Contract carriage with seating capacity: 8+1.
Can Insurance company claim that there was breach of Insurance contract?As the vehicle was used for contract carriage as hire and reward?
I find the document as a double tounges policy. Any suggestions? Please give your views.Thank you all in advance.
Hiralal Das
(Expert) 03 April 2009
Really the matter is critical.
Please inform in more detail alongwith the Policy Certificate where mentioned the rules and regulation.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 04 April 2009
Assumi pl furnish more details and enlighten the memebrs iof this forum
N.K.Assumi
(Querist) 04 April 2009
Insured is uneducated youth and from remnote parts of Nagaland.He was given bank loan for self employment for purchased of Tata Spasio in 2002. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company regd Office calcutta, bearing certificate No.200207/ 31/02/61/ 16349/ Policy No.31/02/61/16349commencing from O' 06-04-2003 to midnight 05-01-04.Accident occured on 27th May 2003.The only documents of insurance in his possession is the documents mentioned above.It appears that the insurance company took all the papers from him after the accident report was made to the insurance.
The said vehicle was also insured seperately with a premium of Rs.15,400/- the issue is not the vehicle but the third party as mentioned above.
N.K.Assumi
(Querist) 04 April 2009
Consider this? Insurance took a premium of Rs.16,500/- providing with seating capacity of 10+1 of a vehicle belonging to unemployed youth and gave a condition that the vehicle can be used only for pleasure and domestic purpose and insured business and not for hire or reward? This is beyond our wildest imagination.I can only say that insurance has made a false representation in the Act Policy, to deprived the claimant against the insured.
N.K.Assumi
(Querist) 04 April 2009
Dear Hiralalji, Yes, the matter is critical, but it became critical manufactured by the Insurance company. We dont know how much of such incidents have prevailed and are prevailing in a remote parts of this Country like Nagaland.
MANISH
(Expert) 04 April 2009
Dear friend,
Such are the common pleas as are taken by the insurance companies.
No matter, you may file a consumer complaint before the consumer forum, and may prove that as per the recent amendment of "consumer", the owner of the taxi falls under the definition of "consumer", and the complaint shall be maintainable.
Further, if the third party has filed a case u/s 140 r/w s. 166 of MV Act, before MACT, then still the insurance company is liable if at the time of accident it is driven by the driver holding a valid badge/driving license.
In your case, the insurance company is liable for both the liabilities. in respect of the vehicle as well as in respect of the third party.
N.K.Assumi
(Querist) 05 April 2009
Thanks all of you for the valuable contributions.
