31 August,2023 05:39 PM IST | Thane | PTI
Representative Image
The Thane Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission ruled in favour of a customer, instructing an insurance company to fulfill a motor accident claim amounting to Rs 5.19 lakh, a report in PTI stated. The customer, Rehmat Ansari, who owns a transport business, had purchased a year-long motor insurance policy for his trailer truck in March 2021. Following an accident in July of the same year, Ansari reported the incident and submitted a repair claim worth Rs 5.19 lakh. The insurer, however, rejected the claim, prompting Ansari to approach the consumer commission.
According to the PTI report, commission president Ravindra P Nagre and members Gauri M Kapse and Sheetal A Petkar issued the order on July 17, which was made public recently. The Commission, in its ruling, directed the insurer's senior officials to collectively pay the claim amount along with 12 percent interest from September 2021 onwards. Moreover, recognizing the deficiency in services, the Commission also granted Ansari a compensation of Rs 3.2 lakh.
Reportedly, the insurer's argument that Ansari had reported the accident after an 80-day period was dismissed by the Commission as "totally wrong and baseless." The Commission further highlighted Ansari's predicament of being unable to reclaim possession of his vehicle due to the unresolved repair bill. The compensation of Rs 3.2 lakh was awarded to account for the inconvenience and financial loss endured by Ansari throughout the claims process.
In a similar case earlier this year, the consumer panel had ordered an insurance company to pay Rs 30 lakh claim amount to a complainant for damages to his flat due to slab collapse. The commission had ordered SBI General Insurance Company td to pay the claim amount within 45 days of the order failing which they will have to pay nine percent per annum until realisation.
The commission had also ordered payment of Rs 50,000 toward the esteemed loss and costs of litigation to the complainant. The complainant had taken out a loan from the company who approached him with housing policy and said that it will cover risks in case the flat is damaged or gets destroyed in fire, earthquake or enemy attack.
