Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Business Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    subhakar daggula
    Om prakash's truck was stolen and he filed a police report under IPC section 379 for theft. He later filed a claim with Reliance Insurance which was initially approved but later denied for not filing within the 8 day period required by the insurance policy terms. Om prakash filed a case with the district consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The district and state courts ruled in favor of the insurance company. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Om prakash, directing the insurance company to pay the claim plus interest and stating that technical delays in filing should not negate legitimate claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Business Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    subhakar daggula
    95 views2 pages
    Om prakash's truck was stolen and he filed a police report under IPC section 379 for theft. He later filed a claim with Reliance Insurance which was initially approved but later denied for not filing within the 8 day period required by the insurance policy terms. Om prakash filed a case with the district consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The district and state courts ruled in favor of the insurance company. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Om prakash, directing the insurance company to pay the claim plus interest and stating that technical delays in filing should not negate legitimate claims.

    Original Description:

    It is about law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Om prakash's truck was stolen and he filed a police report under IPC section 379 for theft. He later filed a claim with Reliance Insurance which was initially approved but later denied for not filing within the 8 day period required by the insurance policy terms. Om prakash filed a case with the district consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The district and state courts ruled in favor of the insurance company. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Om prakash, directing the insurance company to pay the claim plus interest and stating that technical delays in filing should not negate legitimate claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Business Law Assignment

    Uploaded by

    subhakar daggula
    Om prakash's truck was stolen and he filed a police report under IPC section 379 for theft. He later filed a claim with Reliance Insurance which was initially approved but later denied for not filing within the 8 day period required by the insurance policy terms. Om prakash filed a case with the district consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The district and state courts ruled in favor of the insurance company. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Om prakash, directing the insurance company to pay the claim plus interest and stating that technical delays in filing should not negate legitimate claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPORT ON OM PR AKASH VERSUS RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE.

    FACTS OF THE CASE:

     Om prakash is the resident of Bhiwadi of Alwar district, Rajasthan.


     On March 23rd, 2010 his truck was stolen from a village which is nearby Bhiwadi.
     On the next day he went to police station and lodged an FIR under IPC section 379.
     He and his driver along with police assistance searched for the whereabouts of the truck
    in and around the Alwar for a week.
     After the search police confirmed that the truck was stolen
     To claim the insurance of the truck, Om prakash visited the Reliance General Insurance
    office which is located in Hisar, Haryana on 31st March, 2010.
     An investigation officer was appointed by the insurance company to investigate the issue.
     Accordingly, corporate claims manager approved an amount of Rs 7,85,000/- towards
    the claim of Om prakash.
     However, Om prakash didn’t receive the said amount.
     He requested the insurance company to sanction the said amount as soon as possible but,
    there is no response from the side of the company.
     Drained out of his patience he served a legal notice to the company.
     As a respondent, company replied that “under condition no.1 of the insurance policy
    (terms & conditions of the insurance company) when a theft happens the insure should
    request for the claim immediately after the theft but, Om prakash approached the
    insurance company after the 8 days of happening of the theft hence, his claim for the
    amount is denied”
     Aggrieved with the company’s response Om prakash filed a case on Reliance General
    Insurance Company in the district commission under section 12 of consumer protection
    act, 1986.
     Section 12 in the consumer protection act, 1986 is defined as: “A complaint in relation to
    any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or
    agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum” source:
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1891987/
     In the petition to the district commission he demanded the company to pay his claimed
    amount with an interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- for mental
    agony.
     The judgments of district commission, state commission, national commission favored
    the company
     However, Supreme Court judgment favored Om prakash and also gave a landmark
    judgment in this case.

    QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:

     Why FIR is lodged under IPC section 379 by Om prakash?


     Is section 12 of consumer protection act, applicable to the following case?
     Will the courts consider condition no.1 of insurance policy?
     As Om prakash was 8 days late to apply for a claim due to theft of his truck, is it
    valid to deny his claim by the company? What is the apex court’s stand on this?

    POSITION OF THE LAW:

    Om prakash truck was stolen he lodged an FIR under IPC section 379 (it talks about punishment
    for committing a theft). He went to reliance insurance office to claim the insured amount.
    Initially, the amount was granted later it was denied because he violated the condition no.1 of
    insurance company. Aggrieved by their statement under section 12 of consumer protection act
    1986 he moved the district court stating that the service was denied to him. Company’s defense
    was Om prakash violated condition no.1 of insurance policy in which he approached the
    company for the claim after 8 days of happening of the theft.

    JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS:

    The verdicts of district forum as well as, state commission stated that there is no defect in the
    service provided by the company hence they need not pay any claim or compensation demanded
    by Om prakash.

    NATIONAL COMMISSION:

    Om prakash to the national commission explained every detail in the case to convince the court
    regarding why he was late to visit the insurance company to claim his amount he tried to justify
    his stand against condition no.1 of insurance policy but the national commission stood on to the
    judgments given by its subordinate courts.

    SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT:

    It kept aside all the orders of the subordinate courts and favored the appellant and directed the
    company to pay a sum of Rs 8,35,000/- with an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing
    of the claim petition to the date of payment and the payment should be made within 8 weeks.
    It also stated that it is a basic knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not directly go to
    the Insurance Company to claim compensation. Initially, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.
    It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle.
    However, if the claim is genuine insurer cannot reject it based on these technical grounds. If
    insurance companies frame such rules the public will lose trust on the policy makers.
    Moreover, it even mentioned that consumer protection act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation that
    deserves a liberal construction (interest of the public at large).

    You might also like