Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Harpreet Sing, Minor Son Of Ajaib ... on 20 December, 2002

National Insurance Company Limited vs Harpreet Singh on 18 September, 2023

13. Moreover, the appellant has not mentioned the date when they have applied for certified copy. A perusal of record reveals that the District Forum has dispatched the copy of impugned order vide diary no. 229-230 dated 16.05.2023. Copy of impugned order was dispatched vide consignment no. ED29238021IN by the District Forum in envelop and received by the appellant on 19.05.2023 as per envelope filed on page 22. Further, the appellant has averred in para 3 of the application that they have received the copy on 23.05.2023. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the copy of the impugned order on 23.05.2023, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 22.06.2023. Thus, still there is unexplained delay of 43 days in filing the appeal for which sufficient/cogent reasons have not been given. Even the date of DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023 Lok Adalat in May 2023 has not been mentioned. As per our information, it was held on 13.05.2023. It is not even mentioned as to the specific date file was traced and by whom. Name of the official/officer who traced the file has been withheld and his/her affidavit has also not been filed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Harpreet Singh on 18 September, 2023

13. Moreover, the appellant has not mentioned the date when they have applied for certified copy. A perusal of record reveals that the District Forum has dispatched the copy of impugned order vide diary no. 229-230 dated 16.05.2023. Copy of impugned order was dispatched vide consignment no. ED29238021IN by the District Forum in envelop and received by the appellant on 19.05.2023 as per envelope filed on page 22. Further, the appellant has averred in para 3 of the application that they have received the copy on 23.05.2023. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the copy of the impugned order on 23.05.2023, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 22.06.2023. Thus, still there is unexplained delay of 43 days in filing the appeal for which sufficient/cogent reasons have not been given. Even the date of DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023 Lok Adalat in May 2023 has not been mentioned. As per our information, it was held on 13.05.2023. It is not even mentioned as to the specific date file was traced and by whom. Name of the official/officer who traced the file has been withheld and his/her affidavit has also not been filed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Harpreet Singh on 18 September, 2023

13. Moreover, the appellant has not mentioned the date when they have applied for certified copy. A perusal of record reveals that the District Forum has dispatched the copy of impugned order vide diary no. 229-230 dated 16.05.2023. Copy of impugned order was dispatched vide consignment no. ED29238021IN by the District Forum in envelop and received by the appellant on 19.05.2023 as per envelope filed on page 22. Further, the appellant has averred in para 3 of the application that they have received the copy on 23.05.2023. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the copy of the impugned order on 23.05.2023, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 22.06.2023. Thus, still there is unexplained delay of 43 days in filing the appeal for which sufficient/cogent reasons have not been given. Even the date of DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023 Lok Adalat in May 2023 has not been mentioned. As per our information, it was held on 13.05.2023. It is not even mentioned as to the specific date file was traced and by whom. Name of the official/officer who traced the file has been withheld and his/her affidavit has also not been filed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Seethamma W/O Late Ramappa on 17 February, 2010

fir \! 18.3 In Union of India vs. SwjiI' Sing}: Arwal {AIR 1979 SC W01). the S1_.:p:*c1'1'1c Court. held E11211. where the c1cfende.1r1t. had not raismi the plea of illeg21lit"y of the 21g§1'e&?I11e1'1t' in written statemcm and as no is.'3Fl.¢f7_J' fr;-11m-rd in rcggalrd to it. Hit.' ci('1'c;'11(1a11'11':':"S11;/iif.I'd'o not be permitted to r21ise_ ;S.1..1bo11 yee1rs after the suit. as it:.=.A:\x.I():I-_..11AC_.1fiv;$ii¢_j.:L1.Ci'ioo:1 T .' man-mf:'."
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

Branch Manager vs Mariyammal on 6 February, 2013

10. The Tribunal, on holding that the second respondent had not proved that the deceased had travelled as a gratuitous passenger and on relying on the judgment made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. vs. Sulpat Sing and others reported in (2000) I SCC 237 and also in view of its 1994 amendment, wherein it was held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation even for gratuitous passengers, if they had been involved in the accident, held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document
1