BR100 Increased By (0.66%)
BR30 Increased By (0.37%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.44%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.42%)
AGHA 7.78 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.39%)
BECO 5.19 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BML 58.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-1.13%)
BOP 34.16 Increased By ▲ 0.47 (1.4%)
CNERGY 10.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.66%)
CSIL 5.43 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (2.45%)
FCCL 54.70 Increased By ▲ 0.96 (1.79%)
FFL 16.68 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (1.34%)
FNEL 1.25 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (2.46%)
KEL 7.38 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.37%)
KOSM 5.77 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (2.3%)
LOTCHEM 29.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.24%)
MLCF 95.35 Decreased By ▼ -1.01 (-1.05%)
NBP 203.70 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.08%)
NCPL 57.80 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (1.67%)
NPL 69.00 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (2.51%)
OGDC 316.89 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-0.42%)
PACE 10.74 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.03%)
PAEL 42.81 Increased By ▲ 1.04 (2.49%)
PIBTL 16.84 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.18%)
PPL 220.24 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.03%)
PRL 50.75 Increased By ▲ 1.70 (3.47%)
PTC 70.62 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (0.87%)
SSGC 28.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.74 (-2.54%)
TBL 9.90 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.33%)
TELE 8.85 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.34%)
TPL 18.25 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (6.29%)
TPLP 12.94 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (3.44%)
TREET 22.79 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.89%)
TRG 59.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-0.5%)

LAHORE: An insurance company has declined to pay depreciated value of a stolen vehicle.

According to details, the insurer had insured his long vehicle with the insurance company through a leading company against Rs35,60,000/- on annual premium of Rs1,06,800/-. The insurer approached the insurance company when owner of the vehicle failed to contact driver of the vehicle, followed by police report.

The owner of the vehicle claimed for payment of insured amount as the incident of missing of the vehicle was claimed to have been covered under the policy if insurance inked between the parties.

The insurance company flatly denied the claim, which led to the change of stance of the owner of the vehicle urging for payment of the depreciated value of his stolen vehicle.

The insurance company refused to entertain it on the ground that the vehicle had not been stolen from him; rather he had himself handed it over to his driver who misappropriated the vehicle, which was not covered under the policy. Also, conduct of the owner of the vehicle suggested that the vehicle was concealed somewhere with his consent and the claim was based on a mere police report. There was no proper FIR so that the matter could have been properly investigated for retrieval if the vehicle.

The company also doubted the claim on the ground that the owner had not made any effort for retrieval of the vehicle and preferred to lodge a claim. The insurance company also objected to the claim application filed three months after the date of disappearance of the vehicle.

The owner had also not taken any action against the driver, which was against normal human conduct. He had also not having the address of the driver, as he had not obtained CNIC at the time of employing him for the vehicle.

He had no idea about the name of the father of the driver. His sole response was that he had trust over the driver, which was breached. The insurance company declined to entertain the insurance claim.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.