Top Stories
MERE DELAY IN INFORMING ABOUT VEHICLE THEFT CANNOT RENDER INSURANCE CLAIM REJECTED: SC
PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES MADE PUBLIC: SC
20
Top Stories
MERE DELAY IN INFORMING ABOUT VEHICLE THEFT CANNOT RENDER INSURANCE CLAIM REJECTED: SC
Thursday, September 07, 2017
The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine, the bench observed.
In Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance, the Supreme Court has observed that though the owner has to inform the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims, particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances.
The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds and rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry, observed a bench comprising Justice R
K Agrawal and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.
On grounds that there has been a hold up of eight days in informing the insurer about the theft occurred, the claim was rejected.
If the reason for delay in making a claim is convincingly explained, it cannot be rejected on the basis of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator, the bench said.
The court also argued that the Consumer Protection Act focuses at providing better protection of the interest of consumers and it is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction.
This commendable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act, the bench said while setting aside the National Commission order.
PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES MADE PUBLIC: SC
Saturday, October 07, 2017
For the first time in history, the seniormost Supreme Court judges will appoint or transfer judges, with their reasons openly in public. The Supreme Court collegium system is a panel of the country’ s top five judges including the Chief Justice of India. The panel has decided that its discussions and recommendations for the first time will be put up on the Supreme Court’ s website.
The collegium system of judges appointing judges has been condemned over the years by the government with the system checking the transparency and the accountability of such judicial appointments. However, many reforms too have been suggested as the eminent jurists believed that collegium lacks transparency.
National Judicial Appointments Commission( NJAC), which would comprise of the Law Minister and two eminent persons chosen by a separate panel including the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition were introduced by the Parliament in 2015.
But NJAC was annuled by the Supreme Court, which felt the government too would have a say in deciding judges and the independence of the judiciary, would be dissolved.
The Supreme Court’ s collegium system has been in controversy over a judge resigning after being passed over for elevation recently; the decision of the panel to go public can remove the differences in the system. In the Justice Jayant Patel example, who ordered a CBI investigation into the 2004 Ishrat Jehan encounter killing in Gujarat, was not promoted to Karnataka Chief Justice despite being seniormost in the state. Moreover, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he dropped to third in seniority.
November 2017 | Legal Era | www. legaleraonline. com