The Supreme court clarified how to get money for the broken credit car
Sun on how to get a refund if broke credit car
The Supreme court gave an explanation on what to do if a motorist involved in an accident in the credit car was unable to obtain monetary compensation. Who is obliged the owner to pay back the money? What to do in this situation?
Brief background. Occurred dorozhno-transport incident in which were severely damaged car, car owners bought on credit. The trouble of course, but not an extreme case, the car is in fact insured under a contract of insurance, which means payments or car repairs a HUNDRED not long to wait, so I thought the motorist.
The only legal disadvantage in this situation we can assume that the car was taken on borrowed funds, which means the insurer needs to agree a method of compensation with the Bank.
The driver was sent statements that deadlines were unanswered. The car was repaired at the expense of the owner, and submitted the claims for reimbursement of expenses to the insurer. At this time, insurance was the answer from the Bank, which was recommended refurbishment of the service station.
Since the repair was carried out previously by the owner, he demanded the insurance company to pay money in accordance with the incurred expenses, but the insurer refused to satisfy this logical requirement, citing the recommendation coming from the Bank.
Subtotal: In connection with the insured event the citizen appealed to the insurance company, attaching the necessary documents, but the direction to repair it by the insurer is not issued, the funds are also not paid, in connection with what is involved in an accident, the driver went to court.
The court sided with the owner and ordered the insurance company to pay the amount of insurance compensation you spent on car repairs and confirmed by appraisal of repair. Amount, by the way exceeded 800 thousand roubles. Plus, the added fines and damages.
However, with this decision, the court agreed the insurance company itself, the appeal was submitted. The court of appeal came to the following conclusion: Since the insurance company such consent from the Bank was received, reason for payment to the plaintiff of the amount of insurance compensation was not available.
That is, we see a clear infringement of the rights and legitimate requirements of the plaintiff, the agreement is implemented in this case was not at a traffic accident took place to be, that is the insured event occurred and none of the parties was not trying to prove the opposite.
The Supreme court came in this case to the following conclusion:
“By virtue of articles 9, 10 law of the Russian Federation dated 27 November 1992 № 4015-1 “On organization of insurance business in the Russian Federation”, the obligation to pay insurance compensation is cash. Payment can be in cash or in kind (maintenance of vehicles)”.
The Supreme Court stressed that the response of the Bank is voluntary and does not exclude the possibility of including monetary compensation.
“In addition, when the determination is not taken into account by the court of appeal of the clarification contained in paragraph 42 of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27 June 2013 № 20 “About application by courts of legislation on voluntary property insurance of citizens” that, if the voluntary insurance agreement provides for refurbishment of the vehicle to the service station, at the expense of the insurer, in the case of default of the obligation to manufacture and refurbishment within the insurance contract the policyholder shall be entitled to entrust the performance of repair to third parties or to produce his own strength and to demand from the insurer the expenses incurred within the insured benefits,” according to the materials of the case.
VS has cancelled the decision of appeal instance and has sent business on new consideration.
Thus, it is confirmed that the terms of the agreement by the insurance company with the Bank, this is a headache not of the vehicle owner and the insurer, for which he should be liable in accordance with the contract.