Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Surinder Singh Khurana on 10 November, 2005

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr. vs Smt. Jasbeer Kour on 25 March, 2015

8. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharwin K. David II (2011) CPJ 266 (NC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Shivhare, IV (2007) CPJ 366 (NC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Singh Khurana, 1986-2006 CONSUMER 10530 (NS); G. Kothainachiar vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. IV // 6 // (2007) CPJ 347 (NC); Mohd. Unis vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager & Anr. 2014 (1) CPR 491 (NC), judgment of this Commission in Girijanand Pathak vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manger (Appeal No.25/2008) decided on 21.01.2009; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager vs. Prandhar Agrawal (Appeal No.214/07) decided on 30.10.2008; Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Sukhvinder Kaur (Appeal No.FA/13/346) decided on 19.08.2014; The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Shri Dharnidhar Sharma (Appeal No.FA/13/297) decided on 23.12.2014; Om Prakash Baghel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2007) CPJ 90;
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raipur Power & Steel Ltd. vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 13 October, 2015

// 10 // The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent (O.P.) on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the value of the goods. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and impugned order passed by the District Forum, be set aside. He placed reliance on Bherajram vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, I (2015) CPJ 332 (NC); Kesarben vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2001 CCJ 595; Rama Associates Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, I (2014) CPJ 10 (NC); New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Surinder Singh Khurana, 1986-2006 Consumer 10530 (NS) NC & SC On Consumer Cases (Part VII); Mohd. Unis vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager & Anr. 2014 (1) CPR 491 (NC); Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Company Limited, I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC); Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 536 and Appeal No.FA/13/346 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through : Branch Manager vs. Mrs. Sukhvinder Kaur, decided by this Commission on 19.08.2014.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Murat Singh Sharo vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 2 May, 2018

7. Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the truck in question was overloaded and due to overloading of the bags of Tendu Leaves, the vehicle came to contact of electric line and Tendu Leaves and vehicle both were burnt due to negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. The complainant had overloaded the truck in violation of Rule 93 (4) (ii) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The vehicle was overloaed with Tendu Leaves bags. The alleged incident occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. Had the vehicle been loaded within permitted height of 4.75 metres, there would be no chance of touching of bags Tendu Leaves with electric line. It shows that the vehicle was use in violation of Rule 93 (4)(ii) of the Central Motors Vehciles Rules, 1989, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to ghet any compensation even on not standard basis from the O.P. The O.P. had rightly repdudiated the claim of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. He placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Singh Khurana, I (2006) CPJ 43 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Suresh Babu & Anr., I (2007) CPJ 23 (NC); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Rafiq, IV (2004) CPJ 606 decided by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 31.03.2004.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Charan Singh on 12 February, 2014

2. The facts, to be taken notice of for the decision of the appeal at the preliminary stage, are that the complainant got his vehicle (oil tanker) bearing registration No.HR-37-A-3933 insured with the opposite party for the period 21.7.2011 to 20.7.2012, while disclosing the IDV thereof as Rs.4,80,000/- and paid the premium accordingly. This vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 24/25.11.2011 and regarding that theft, FIR No.146 dated 8.11.2012 was got registered with the police and the information was given to the opposite party on 25.11.2011 itself. The claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was no permit of the vehicle, which violated the terms and conditions of the policy. After going through the evidence produced by both the sides in support of their respective averments and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, it was held by the District Forum that the route permit had no nexus with the cause of accident though the same can be termed as breach of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the breach of such a condition was not fundamental breach and the loss was to be paid on non-standard basis. While recording that finding it relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2005(3) CPR 124 (NC) (New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Surinder Singh Khurana).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1