Mobil Hilang, Asuransi DitolakLanta

Mobil Hilang, Asuransi Ditolak
Lantaran dinilai bukan pemegang polis, klaim asuransi atas kehilangan mobil konsumen kandas.

Jika Anda pemegang polis asuransi kendaraan. Perhatikan jenis pertanggungan yang diberikan perusahaan yang anda pilih. Jika pertangungan untuk kepentingan pribadi, sebaiknya jangan gunakan untuk kepentingan komersial. Jika tidak, bukan tak mungkin klaim asuransi anda akan ditolak. Hal itu menimpa pemilik warung nasi di bilangan Rawamangun, Nurdin Tanjung.

Nurdin terpaksa harus merelakan mobil Toyota Kijang tahun 2001 miliknya lantaran digondol maling. Pencurian mobil berplat nomor B 8816 itu berlangsung ketika Nurdin menyewakan mobilnya ke pelanggan warung. Rencananya, mobil itu disewa untuk perjalanan ke Subang dengan nilai transaksi Rp350 ribu.

Sesuai kesepakatan maka dua orang penyewa dan Nurdin berangkat menuju Subang pada 27 Juni 2009. Di tengah perjalanan, rombongan tersebut makan dan minum di sebuah warung di Kerawang Barat. Setelah itu, Nurdin malah tak sadarkan diri alias pingsan.

Esok harinya, Nurdin tersadar. Ketika itu, ia tergeletak di balai papan di pinggir jalan Pantura. Sementara mobilnya, raib dibawa kedua orang yang berpura-pura menyewa itu. STNK mobil dan dompet milik Nurdin ikut raib bersama mobil Kijang itu. Padahal, uang sewa penumpang belum didapat.

Sepulangnya ke Jakarta, Nurdin mengajukan klaim asuransi ke PT Asuransi Sinarmas atas kehilangan mobil tersebut. Istri Nurdin, Nurhayati, memang pemegang polis kehilangan dengan No. 02.232.2009.00347. Polis asuransi itu atas nama PT Otto Multiartha qq Nurhayati qq Bambang Widodo Tanoyo N.

Mobil Kijang itu memang dibeli dengan pembiayaan dari PT Otto Multiartha. Mobil tersebut dibeli seharga Rp76 juta dengan uang muka Rp19 juta. Tiap bulannya, Nurdin dan istrinya harus mencicil sebesar Rp2,923 juta. Sedangkan premi asuransi per bulan adalah Rp25.000.

Namun perusahaan milik Asuransi Sinarmas menolak klaim asuransi Nurhayati. Asuransi Sinarmas menolak membayar lantaran penggunaan mobil menyimpang dari pertanggungan yang tertera dalam polis. Kuasa hukum Sinarmas, Parulian Simamora menerangkan polis asuransi Nurhayati hanya untuk kepentingan pribadi bukan komersial. Sementara, ketika mobil hilang, mobil sedang disewakan.

Hal itu ditegaskan pula dalam klausul polis yang berbunyi, “Pertanggungan ini tidak menjamin kerugian, kerusakan biaya yang disebabkan oleh kendaraan digunakan untuk penggunaan selain dari yang dicantumkan dalam polis”.

Lantaran asuransi tak kunjung cair, Nurdin akhirnya melayangkan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat awal November 2009 lalu. Perkaranya teregister No. 424/Pdt.G/2009/PN.JKT.PST. Meski bukan pemegang polis, Nurdin berperan sebagai penggugat sebab ia merupakan korban perampokan langsung.

Kuasa hukum Nurdin, Parulian Tarihoran menyatakan ketika Nurhayati menandatangani polis, pihak asuransi tidak pernah memberitahukan klausul tersebut. Dalam gugatan, Nurdin menuntut ganti kerugian senilai Rp164,1 juta. Kerugian itu merupakan akumulasi dari harga beli mobil ditambah dengan biaya mobil pengganti dan biaya pengacara.

Namun upaya Nurdin tak berbuah manis. Majelis hakim yang diketuai Jihad Arkanuddin menilai Nurdin tidak memiliki hubungan dengan masalah yang disengketakan. Dari bukti polis yang diajukan Nurdin sendiri terungkap bahwa pemegang polis adalah Nurhayati, istri penggugat. Nurdin bukan pihak yang tertanggung dalam polis. “Gugatan dinyatakan tidak dapat diterima,” kata Jihad saat membacakan putusan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, Senin (15/2).

Pertimbangan majelis hakim senada dengan eksepsi Asuransi Sinarmas. Kuasa hukum Sinarmas menyatakan bahwa penggugat tidak memiliki kapasitas melayangkan gugatan dengan alasan yang sama dengan majelis hakim. Usai bersidang Parulian Simamora menyatakan sependapat dengan putusan majelis hakim.

Sementara, Parulian Tarihoran menyatakan Nurdin tetap berkepentingan mengajukan gugatan. Karena, ia adalah korban perampokan langsung. Namun ia belum memutuskan langkah hukum selanjutnya, apakah mengajukan banding atau melayangkan gugatan baru atas nama Nurhayati.

Kết quả (Anh) 1:

The Car Is Missing, The Insurance DeniedDue to the votes not policyholders, insurance claims for loss of car consumers ran aground.If you are the holder of the vehicle insurance policy. Note the type of coverage provided the company you choose. If pertangungan for personal interests, we recommend that you do not use it for commercial interests. If not, isn't it unlikely your insurance claim will be rejected. It afflicts rice stall owner in numbers Rawamangun, Nurdin Cape. Nurdin was forced to answer car Toyota Kijang in 2001 because of his digondol a thief. Car theft berplat number B 8816 it progress when Barcelona rent his car to the customer stalls. The plan, the car was hired to travel to Subang with transaction value of Rp350 thousand. According to agreement then the two tenants and Andrey departed Subang on June 27, 2009. On the way, groups of the eating and drinking at a stall in the Filigree of the West. After that, the Report even unconscious aka swoon. The next day, Mario Balotelli struck me. At that time, he was lying on the porch of roadside boards Line. While his car vanished, carried both people who pretend to rent it. VEHICLE REGISTRATION car and a wallet belonging to Nurdin join vanished along with that car Kijang. In fact, the rent of the passengers has not been obtained. Upon returning to Jakarta, Report filing insurance claims to PT Sinarmas Insurance for loss of the car. Nurdin's wife, Nurhayati, indeed policyholders lost with no. 02.232.2009.00347. That insurance policy on behalf of PT Otto Multiartha qq qq Nurhayati Bambang Widodo Tanoyo N. Car Kijang was purchased with financing from PT Otto Multiartha. The car was purchased for $ Rp76 million with advances Rp19 million. Every month, Nurdin and his wife should be mencicil of Rp2,923 million. While the insurance premium per month is $ 25,000. But the insurance of Sinarmas owned company rejected insurance claims Nurhayati. Sinarmas insurance refused to pay due to the use of the car away from the coverage provided in the policy. The power law of Sinarmas, Parulian Simamora explains the insurance policy only Nurhayati for personal gain rather than commercial. Meanwhile, when the car is gone, the car being leased. It is defined in the policy clause that reads, "this Coverage does not guarantee loss, damage costs caused by vehicles used for use other than that specified in the policy." Because insurance is never liquid, Nurdin finally lifted a lawsuit to District Court of Central Jakarta beginning November 2009. Teregister: No. 424/Pdt. G/2009/PN. JKT. PST. Although not a policy holder, Nurdin acts as a plaintiff because he is the victim of the robbery immediately. The power law of Nurdin, Parulian Tarihoran stated when Nurhayati signed the insurance policy, never divulging the clause. In the lawsuit, Nurdin demanding damages worth Rp164,1 million. A loss that is accumulated from the purchase price of the car plus the cost of replacement car and Attorney's fees. But the effort Report is not fruitful. The Tribunal judge who chaired Jihad Arkanuddin judge Nurdin has no relationship with the issue of the disputed claims. From the evidence of the proposed policy's own Report revealed that the policyholder is Nurhayati, the wife of the plaintiff. Barcelona is not the party that insured in the policy. "The lawsuit is declared inadmissible," said Jihad while reading out the verdict at the Central Jakarta District Court Monday (15/2). Consideration of the Tribunal judges made similar with the exception of Sinarmas Insurance. The power law of Sinarmas stated that the plaintiff does not have the capacity to cast a lawsuit for the same reasons with Tribunal judges. After convening Parulian Simamora States agreed with the ruling of the Tribunal judges. Meanwhile, Parulian Tarihoran stated Nurdin remain interested parties file a lawsuit. Because, he is the victim of the robbery immediately. But he has not yet decided his next legal step, whether the appeal or lifted the new lawsuit on behalf of Nurhayati.

Kết quả (Anh) 2:

Missing car, Denied Insurance
Because rated not policyholders, insurance claim for loss of consumer cars stranded. If your vehicle insurance policy holders. Note the types of coverage provided by the company you choose. If pertangungan for personal interest, you should not use for commercial purposes. If not, it is quite possible your insurance claim will be rejected. It overrides the owner of the rice shop in the numbers Rawamangun, Nurdin Tanjung. Nurdin was forced to give up the car Toyota Kijang 2001 because of his stolen thief. Car theft license plate B 8816 took place when Nurdin renting out his car to stall the customers. The plan, the car was rented for a trip to Subang with transaction value of 350 thousand. According to the agreement, the two tenants and Nurdin headed Subang on June 27, 2009. On the way, the group ate and drank at a tavern in Karawang Barat. After that, Nurdin even unconscious alias fainted. The next day, Nurdin realized. At that time, he was lying on the hall board roadside Pantura. While his car, brought the two men disappeared pretend renting it. Vehicle registration and car participated Nurdin's wallet disappeared along with the Kijang car. In fact, rents the passenger has not been obtained. Upon returning to Jakarta, Nurdin file an insurance claim to PT Asuransi Sinarmas for the loss of the car. Nurdin wife, Nurhayati, indeed policyholders lost to No. 02.232.2009.00347. The insurance policy in the name of PT Otto Multiartha nurhayati qq qq Bambang Widodo Tanoyo N. Mobil Kijang it was purchased with funding from PT Otto Multiartha. The car was purchased for Rp76 million to Rp19 million down payment. Each month, Nurdin and his wife had installments of Rp2,923 million. While the insurance premium per month is 25,000. However, the company belongs to Insurance Sinarmas Nurhayati reject insurance claims. Sinarmas Insurance refuses to pay because of the use of the car deviates from the coverage stated in the policy. Sinarmas legal counsel, Parulian Simamora insurance policy explains Nurhayati only for personal use and not commercial. Meanwhile, when the car is gone, the car is being rented out. It was confirmed also in the clauses of the policy that says, "This insurance does not cover loss, damage costs caused by vehicles used for use other than those specified in the policy." Because insurance is not disbursed, Nurdin finally filed a lawsuit to the Central Jakarta District Court in early November 2009. His case teregister No. 424 / Pdt.G / 2009 / PN.JKT.PST. Although not the policyholder, Nurdin act as a plaintiff because he is a victim of robbery immediately. The attorney Nurdin, Parulian Tarihoran stated when Nurhayati signed the policy, the insurer never told the clause. In the lawsuit, Nurdin demanded damages worth Rp164,1 million. The loss was an accumulation of the purchase price of the car plus the cost of a replacement car and attorneys fees. But the effort is not sweet fruit Nurdin. The panel of judges chaired by Jihad Arkanuddin assess Nurdin has no relationship to the issues in dispute. From the evidence submitted Nurdin policy itself revealed that the policyholder is Nurhayati, the wife of the plaintiff. Nurdin not a party to the insured under the policy. "The suit can not be accepted," said Jihad when reading the verdict in the District Court of Central Jakarta, Monday (15/2). Consideration of the judges fits with the defense Sinarmas Insurance. Sinarmas legal counsel stating that the plaintiff does not have the capacity lawsuit for the same reason with the judges. After convening Parulian Simamora states agree with the decision of the judges. Meanwhile, Parulian Tarihoran stated Nurdin remained concerned filed a lawsuit. Because he was a robbery victim directly. But he has yet to decide the next legal steps, whether to appeal or a new lawsuit on behalf Nurhayati.