Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 302 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R. Srinivasan on 28 February, 2000

M/S. Madhudhar Petrochem vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 19 March, 2019

11.    From the above, it is clear that doors were not shut for the insured by the Insurance Company as some more information and certain more documents were asked by the Insurance Company from the insured.  Obviously the complainant started new dialogue with the Insurance Company and many letters were exchanged between them.  In these circumstances, if the complainant thought of pursing with Insurance Company and not pursuing the appeal against the order of dismissal of the complaint of the complainant with a view to get his claim without any further litigation, there seems to be no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the complainant.  Finally, when the Insurance Company rejected the claim on 18.04.2013 and his representation was also rejected by the Grievance Committee of the Insurance Company, then there was no option with the complainant but to file the consumer complaint on the basis of cause of action arising out of final repudiation letter.  Thus, it is clear that the first complaint was filed when the complainant had not received any reply from the Insurance Company on the claim submitted by him to the Insurance Company whereas the second complaint has been filed when the claim has been repudiated finally by the Insurance Company.  Clearly though the parties are same yet the cause of action in these complaints is not exactly the same.  Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Srinivasan (supra) has clearly observed the following:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Nitin Printers vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 13 July, 2020

11.    It is true that the second complaint is maintainable if the first complaint has been dismissed in default, but the second complaint is also to be treated as fresh complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of question of limitation which becomes important.  The complainant in his complaint has stated that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.Srinivasan, (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for substantive justice technicality is not to be seen and the complainant has requested for condonation of delay in the light of this judgment.  The use of the word 'technicality' in that judgment is in respect of filing of the second complaint and it is not in respect of limitation or any other shortcoming in the complaint.  As the reason for delay is clear in the present case and it has been requested to condone the delay, in the light of the fact that the second complaint has been held to be maintainable in such cases, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Dr. Ram Raj Verma on 28 September, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for     -२- default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal M L K P G Collage vs Anamika Tiwari on 6 October, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to (2) the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramchandra Dixit vs Dr. Jaydip Chandra on 13 October, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced (2)  subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Smt Bhupendra Kaur on 12 October, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to     (2) the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company ... vs 1. Om Parkash Jindal on 3 March, 2014

It was held that this practice, or to put it a little sternly, these tactics would be intolerable for any authority, under the Act.  In such a situation, the District Forum or the State or National Commission, would not be helpless, and it would not be open to them, to dismiss the fresh complaint, on the ground of abuse of the process, available under the Act.  They can, in that situation, legitimately invoke the principles of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by Sh. Ujjwal Goyal, son-in-law of respondent no.1, from the principle of law, laid down, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.`s case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Umesh Yadav on 12 October, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to (2) the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Naresh Kumar Batra on 24 August, 2022

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to   (2) the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhav Bhasin vs Jai Prakash Asoociate on 21 February, 2023

"6. Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the  Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply to (2) the National Commission to set aside the said order in the interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsana Aravind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust 1999(4) SCC 325 and also the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan's case (supra).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next