Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.30 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish Rana vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 February, 2013

Harpinder Pal Singh vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 March, 2014

In Jagdish Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.s case (Supra), the complainant/petitioner got insured his Maruti Car No.DL-3CL-1392 form the OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.77,500/- for a period of one year commencing from 30.9.2002 to 29.9.2003. On 16.2.2003, the car met with an accident and the FIR was lodged and intimation was also given to the Opposite Party. The complainant submitted claim and the Opposite Party also appointed Surveyor but claim was repudiated on the ground that driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident, six persons were travelling in the car against the capacity of four persons and the car was fitted with OPG cylinder whereas, the car was to be driven by petrol. The complainant alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, filed complaint before the District Forum and the Opposite Party resisted the claim on the aforesaid grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.62,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. The Opposite Party filed Appeal No.656/2006 before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Commission, Panchkula, which was allowed vide the order dated 20.9.2010 and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. In Revision Petition, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held, in Paras 6 and 7 as under:-
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

1. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs 1. Mohit Verma on 27 March, 2014

23.   The Counsel for the appellants, however, while referring to Jagdish Rana`s case (supra), submitted that, in that case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, granted compensation, on non-standard basis, holding that there were two violations of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. On careful perusal of the facts of Jagdish Rana`s case (supra), it is evident, that, in that case, there were two violations of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy i.e. six passengers, against the seating capacity of four passengers were sitting, in the vehicle, at the time of accident, and the same (car) was fitted with LPG Gas Kit, and in the Dicky (Boot), Gas Cylinder Belts were found, which depicted that, at the time of accident, it was being driven with Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), without authorization. On account of these violations of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate that compensation should be granted only on non-standard basis, and, ultimately, it (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi), granted compensation, to the extent of 50% of the amount of claim. Since, the compensation, on non-standard basis to the extent of 50% of the claim amount was granted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prevailing in Jagdish Rana`s case (supra), no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, therefrom, as the facts thereof are clearly distinguishable, from the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1