Driver beaten and car stolen at Panvel! EDIT: Legal Opinion Needed

amit_mechengg · 19th December 2009, 12:29

can someone pm me the email id of some claim managers or some higher authorities with icici lombard. i need to notify them about my stand.

rjvora_2000 · 19th December 2009, 13:05

Can I ask you, why you want to tell them? When they have not asked anything till now in writing.

amit_mechengg · 19th December 2009, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjvora_2000

Can I ask you, why you want to tell them? When they have not asked anything till now in writing.

ya thats also a point. i think i shall wait.

rjvora_2000 · 21st December 2009, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by amit_mechengg

ya thats also a point. i think i shall wait.

Collection of E-mail Id is not a bad thing. But reacting now I think will not be right thing. Any update on Final report, when it will come from police?

apachelongbow · 23rd December 2009, 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjvora_2000

Exactly that's not your problem!!!

If your driver has demanded X amount that's not your problem!!!

Why your claim has to be rejected?

Icici and their rejections reason... God bless.

My simple and short advice would be the Insurance Ombudsmen, please get the details of the same and act accordingly as soon tas you receive a letter from them.

If either the owner or the driver has accepted payment for transportation of passengers or goods, then for that journey the vehicle has been used for 'commercial purposes' There is no two ways to this.

Also most insurance policies for private vehicles carry the disclaimer, insurance not valid if vehicle is overloaded, used for racing/rallying or commercial purposes.

If the FIR states that the driver accepted passengers for money, then sorry... there goes your insurance claim out of the window :(

rjvora_2000 · 23rd December 2009, 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

If either the owner or the driver has accepted payment for transportation of passengers or goods, then for that journey the vehicle has been used for 'commercial purposes' There is no two ways to this.

Also most insurance policies for private vehicles carry the disclaimer, insurance not valid if vehicle is overloaded, used for racing/rallying or commercial purposes.

If the FIR states that the driver accepted passengers for money, then sorry... there goes your insurance claim out of the window :(

Sirji I think you have not gone through the entire thread.

If you read the thread you will find some the post that driver has not got money in the reality.

Let me tell you one thing my car is also driven by a driver and he do travel alone sometimes if without my knowledge, if he is taking some money from the people, and he travels with them and there is an accident.

I am dam sure my claim will be payable and will not be rejected as what he is doing is without my knowledge and without my concern.

If he can give the statement of taking the money even I can give the statement of me not permitting him to do this.

raju2512 · 23rd December 2009, 10:23

I also feel that the owner of the car is ultimately responsible for the way in which his car is used. For example some one without license drives his car and meets with an accident, insurance will not pay. The owner can't say that the car was driven without his permission (which may be true) and ask the insurance company to pay.

The best bet will be to contest the FIR which mentions the driver taking money. But again there may be a criminal case for theft in which again the FIR will play a role. Please take legal opinion and proceed strictly as per that

amitk26 · 23rd December 2009, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by raju2512

I also feel that the owner of the car is ultimately responsible for the way in which his car is used. For example some one without license drives his car and meets with an accident, insurance will not pay. The owner can't say that the car was driven without his permission (which may be true) and ask the insurance company to pay.

What if Car is stolen and then driven by person with out license ? Clearly it is driven with out consent of the owner, And in this case FIR will mention that Car was stolen before it met with an accident.

Similarly if the driver is not authorized to collect any money and if he takes any money then it is illegal violating terms and conditions of his employment and that does not void the clam.

But in this particular case no where FIR mentiones that driver took money ICICI is pressurizing owner to give such a statement.

My advice to Amit :

Be polite and firm and ask ICICI person in case you want something written send me in writing. I am sure this is just a tactic in case you yield and they can reject the claim but if you do not then they will have to settle.

nairrk · 23rd December 2009, 10:41

What is the proof that the drive has taken or accepted money from some one else?
The Insurance people claim to have talking about the wordings in the FIR that driver took money. The drive was given the earlier statement when he was in great shock after the incident (and also been beaten by the theives). Now he changes his statement that he never said that he 'took' money instead he said that he was ''offered'' money but ''never given''?. So the FIR wording itself is not genuine. Will it help @amit to protect/argue his case?
Insurance company is only hanging on the FIR wordings but no solid proof with them to prove that the Driver has taken money?

sdp1975 · 23rd December 2009, 10:44

From Third Party Insurance

Earlier not holding a valid driving license was a good defence to the Insurance Company to avoid liability. It was been held by the Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable for claim if driver is not holding effective & valid driving licence. It has also been held that the learner's licence absolves the insurance Company from liability, but later Supreme Court in order to give purposeful meaning to the Act have made this defence very difficult. In Sohan Lal Passi's v. P. Sesh Reddy[4] it has been held for the first time by the Supreme Court that the breach of condition should be with the knowledge of the owner. If owner's knowledge with reference to fake driving licence held by driver is not proved by the Insurance Company, such defence, which was otherwise available, can not absolve insurer from the liability. Recently in a dynamic judgment in case of Swaran Singh [5], the Supreme Court has almost taken away the said right by holding;

(i) Proving breach of condition or not holding driving licence or holding fake licence or carrying gratuitous passenger would not absolve the Insurance Company until it is proved that the said breach was with the knowledge of owner.

INDIAN_VAGABOND · 23rd December 2009, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp1975

From Third Party Insurance

Earlier not holding a valid driving license was a good defence to the Insurance Company to avoid liability. It was been held by the Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable for claim if driver is not holding effective & valid driving licence. It has also been held that the learner's licence absolves the insurance Company from liability, but later Supreme Court in order to give purposeful meaning to the Act have made this defence very difficult. In Sohan Lal Passi's v. P. Sesh Reddy[4] it has been held for the first time by the Supreme Court that the breach of condition should be with the knowledge of the owner. If owner's knowledge with reference to fake driving licence held by driver is not proved by the Insurance Company, such defence, which was otherwise available, can not absolve insurer from the liability. Recently in a dynamic judgment in case of Swaran Singh [5], the Supreme Court has almost taken away the said right by holding;

(i) Proving breach of condition or not holding driving licence or holding fake licence or carrying gratuitous passenger would not absolve the Insurance Company until it is proved that the said breach was with the knowledge of owner.

Does this ruling cater to only Third Party Insurance or does it apply for Comprehensive Insurance claims as well ??

rjvora_2000 · 23rd December 2009, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp1975

From Third Party Insurance

Earlier not holding a valid driving license was a good defence to the Insurance Company to avoid liability. It was been held by the Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable for claim if driver is not holding effective & valid driving licence. It has also been held that the learner's licence absolves the insurance Company from liability, but later Supreme Court in order to give purposeful meaning to the Act have made this defence very difficult. In Sohan Lal Passi's v. P. Sesh Reddy[4] it has been held for the first time by the Supreme Court that the breach of condition should be with the knowledge of the owner. If owner's knowledge with reference to fake driving licence held by driver is not proved by the Insurance Company, such defence, which was otherwise available, can not absolve insurer from the liability. Recently in a dynamic judgment in case of Swaran Singh [5], the Supreme Court has almost taken away the said right by holding;

(i) Proving breach of condition or not holding driving licence or holding fake licence or carrying gratuitous passenger would not absolve the Insurance Company until it is proved that the said breach was with the knowledge of owner.

Wonderful writeup

Are you lawyer by any chance?

May be

Please read this:-

I know of a case that,
1. Minor was driving a car.
2. Without DL.
3. He was under the influence of alcohol.
4. His motor insurance was only TP and which was not renewed from 6 months.

Under this condition court had told insurer to make payment to third party as it was a duty of an insurer to send the renewal notice which they had not sent and that was the reason of non-renewal of the policy.

Raccoon · 23rd December 2009, 17:47

^^^ In that case how did they prove that the renewal notice was indeed not sent? Insurer may claim it was sent. The insured party may of course claim otherwise...

rjvora_2000 · 23rd December 2009, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon

^^^ In that case how did they prove that the renewal notice was indeed not sent? Insurer may claim it was sent. The insured party may of course claim otherwise...

I my self is searching for the writeup of this case yaar...

amit_mechengg · 27th March 2010, 11:50

hi all,

all my humble requests and explanations have failed and even before sending the final investigation reports to ICICI they have rejected my claim.
when i called them to know the status of my claim they said that they have already sent the letter in February, which i never received.

when i asked them the status they said they have sent a reject notice. they said that your car was being used as commercial vehicle.
now i have asked them to send me the notice again.

how can i fight this unjustice? what should be my next steps?
how do i contact the ombudsman?

19th December 2009, 12:29	#151
amit_mechengg Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pune Posts: 2,488 Thanked: 2,252 Times View My Garage	can someone pm me the email id of some claim managers or some higher authorities with icici lombard. i need to notify them about my stand.
	() Thanks

19th December 2009, 13:05	#152
rjvora_2000 Senior - BHPian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Mumbai/Mulund Posts: 1,658 Thanked: 56 Times	Can I ask you, why you want to tell them? When they have not asked anything till now in writing.
	() Thanks

23rd December 2009, 10:23	#157
raju2512 BHPian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Chennai Posts: 325 Thanked: 143 Times	I also feel that the owner of the car is ultimately responsible for the way in which his car is used. For example some one without license drives his car and meets with an accident, insurance will not pay. The owner can't say that the car was driven without his permission (which may be true) and ask the insurance company to pay. The best bet will be to contest the FIR which mentions the driver taking money. But again there may be a criminal case for theft in which again the FIR will play a role. Please take legal opinion and proceed strictly as per that
	() Thanks

23rd December 2009, 10:41	#159
nairrk Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Kannur Posts: 2,441 Thanked: 674 Times View My Garage	What is the proof that the drive has taken or accepted money from some one else? The Insurance people claim to have talking about the wordings in the FIR that driver took money. The drive was given the earlier statement when he was in great shock after the incident (and also been beaten by the theives). Now he changes his statement that he never said that he 'took' money instead he said that he was ''offered'' money but ''never given''?. So the FIR wording itself is not genuine. Will it help @amit to protect/argue his case? Insurance company is only hanging on the FIR wordings but no solid proof with them to prove that the Driver has taken money?
	() Thanks

23rd December 2009, 10:44	#160
sdp1975 Senior - BHPian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,700 Thanked: 1,273 Times View My Garage	From Third Party Insurance Earlier not holding a valid driving license was a good defence to the Insurance Company to avoid liability. It was been held by the Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable for claim if driver is not holding effective & valid driving licence. It has also been held that the learner's licence absolves the insurance Company from liability, but later Supreme Court in order to give purposeful meaning to the Act have made this defence very difficult. In Sohan Lal Passi's v. P. Sesh Reddy[4] it has been held for the first time by the Supreme Court that the breach of condition should be with the knowledge of the owner. If owner's knowledge with reference to fake driving licence held by driver is not proved by the Insurance Company, such defence, which was otherwise available, can not absolve insurer from the liability. Recently in a dynamic judgment in case of Swaran Singh [5], the Supreme Court has almost taken away the said right by holding; (i) Proving breach of condition or not holding driving licence or holding fake licence or carrying gratuitous passenger would not absolve the Insurance Company until it is proved that the said breach was with the knowledge of owner.
	() Thanks

23rd December 2009, 17:47	#163
Raccoon Senior - BHPian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Poona Posts: 1,851 Thanked: 116 Times	^^^ In that case how did they prove that the renewal notice was indeed not sent? Insurer may claim it was sent. The insured party may of course claim otherwise...
	() Thanks

27th March 2010, 11:50	#165
amit_mechengg Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pune Posts: 2,488 Thanked: 2,252 Times View My Garage	hi all, all my humble requests and explanations have failed and even before sending the final investigation reports to ICICI they have rejected my claim. when i called them to know the status of my claim they said that they have already sent the letter in February, which i never received. when i asked them the status they said they have sent a reject notice. they said that your car was being used as commercial vehicle. now i have asked them to send me the notice again. how can i fight this unjustice? what should be my next steps? how do i contact the ombudsman?
	() Thanks