Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing S.G Shivamurtheppa vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28 November, 2011

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Through ... vs Hem Sagar Patel on 8 September, 2015

In S.G. Shivamurtheppa v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), it has been observed by Hon'ble National Commission that "the sitting capacity of the vehicle was not exceeding 12 and at time of accident, vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons, therefore, there was explicit and admitted violation of one of the condition of insurance policy, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ram Prasad Khunte on 5 November, 2015

26. S.G. Shivamurtheppa vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited I (2012) CPJ 175 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& "Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - Insurance - Carrying of - Excessive passengers - Breach of policy conditions - Vehicle met with accident - Claim repudiated - Complaint partly allowed - Appeal allowed and order of District Forum set aside - Hence, revision petition - Motor vehicle was registered for carriage of passengers not exceeding to 12 - At time of accident, vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons - There was explicit and admitted violation of condition of insurance policy and so, claim rightly repudiated by Insurance Company - Impugned order of State Commission valid."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Kishor Parmar on 8 September, 2017

16- S.G. Shivamurtheppa vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited I (2012) CPJ 175 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& "Motor vehicle was registered for carriage of passengers not exceeding to 12 - At time of accident, vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons - There was explicit and admitted violation of condition of insurance policy and so, claim rightly repudiated by Insurance Company. "
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Kumar Sahu vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 25 January, 2018

18- S.G. Shivamurtheppa vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited I (2012) CPJ 175 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& "Motor vehicle was registered for carriage of passengers not exceeding to 12 - At time of accident, vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons - There was explicit and admitted violation of condition of insurance policy and so, claim rightly repudiated by Insurance Company. "
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Tijeshwari Verma vs Sanat Sahu & Ors. on 8 August, 2018

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of a single Member Bench of this Commission dated 28.11.2011 in S.G. Shivamurtheppa Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. RP/3176/2011. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, repudiation of claim was upheld on finding that not more than 12 persons including driver could have been carried in the vehicle which was instead carrying 16 persons.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next