Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Ashok Kumar Garg & Brothers vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 December, 2013

Sh. Raj Kumar Saini vs L.I.C. Of India on 25 August, 2020

10. It is a trite law that in the event of suppression of material fact the insured is not entitled for indemnification. And what is material has been defined to mean and include relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Asha Garg versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in [2005] 4 CPJ 269 (NC), all of important, essential and relevant information in the context of underwriting the risk to be covered by the insurer.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Vijaykunverba Sahib Of Morvi vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 March, 2016

In "Asha Garg vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd." [OP No. 164/2001 and others decided on 24.11.2005], this Commission made an observation that the insurance company, sometimes grant insurance cover without proper verification and thereafter they tried to avoid the claim on one pretext or the other.  We broadly tend to agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for complainant, looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case.  At the time of taking the previous policy, the Insurance Company should have taken care to provide exact description of all buildings in the complex or they should have stated clearly whether any buildings was being left out.  In the absence of any such specific recital in the policy and keeping in view the fact that the insurance cover was for a total area of 1,44,135 sq. ft., we do feel that the claim should be allowed in accordance with the original report prepared by the surveyors appointed by the insurance company.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Shree Jagdambe Paper Mills Ltd on 16 February, 2016

8.      Further on the basis of receipt Ex.R-18 it cannot be presumed that this policy was issued on depreciation basis even if surveyor assessed the loss on these very basis as mentioned in report Ex.R-14.  It has no where come in the evidence that either report Ex.R-14 or the grounds assessing this loss were conveyed to the complainant.  He might have been under the impression that the loss assessed is correct.  Had this report been sent to him then it could have been a different matter. So it cannot be presumed that this insurance policy was on depreciated value basis.  It has been opined by Hon'ble National Commission in Asha Garg and Ors Vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd. and Ors. 2005 (4) CPJ (NC) 269 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S.M.S.Tele Communications & Anr. 2009 (3) CPJ (N.C.) 246  that unless exclusion clause is highlighted and specifically brought to the notice of the insured that cannot be made applicable.  So,  O.P. cannot assess the loss on the basis of depreciation value.  As already discussed above initially surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.64,177/-. Lateron insurance company increased the same to the tune of Rs.2,64,811/- as mentioned in Ex.C-22.  Complainant has also failed to establish the loss as claimed by him, because he did not supply the details or documents required for re-instatement basis. So loss can be assessed on the basis of presumption as per value mentioned in Ex.C-22 keeping in view the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Chengalrayan Co-operative sugar mills vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2000 (10) SCC 213.  As per report Ex.C-22  surveyor deducted the amount to the tune of Rs.8,59,536/- which is added by learned District  Forum with Rs.2,64,811/-. This depreciation seems to be on higher side because no logic has been given qua the same, so it is reduced to the tune of Rs.Five lacs.  In this way, the complainant is held entitled of Rs.2,64,811+Rs.5,00,000/-=7,64,811/-.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neetaben Mukund Shah & Anr. vs Birla Sun Life Insurance Company ... on 20 May, 2015

In Asha Garg & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2006(2) UC 869, the insured while taking a policy of Rs.5,00,00,000/- from National Insurance Company Ltd., did not disclose that he had submitted two proposals for personal accident insurance with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,00,000/- respectively. It was held by this Commission that since both the companies were different it was not possible for the National Insurance Company to verify whether the two proposals given by the assured were accepted or not accepted. It was further held that had the said fact been disclosed, National Insurance Company would have verified form the office of the United India Insurance Company and might have taken a decision of not granting insurance policy for the sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- or would have charged increased premium. It was held that there was no reason for the assured not to disclose the said fact. This Commission rejected the contention that the aforesaid information was not a material fact and held that the insured was entitled not to abide by the contract.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1