Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Banita Meher And Two Ors. on 2 May, 2007

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sh. Naveen Sharma on 4 April, 2013

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the present appeal and set aside the order of the Learned District Forum, Mandi dated 21.12.2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 319/2010. Our view is supported with the decision given by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meera Banolta passed in Revision Petition No. 4055 of 2010 dated 11th April, 2011 AND United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ved Prakash III(2010) CPJ 52(NC).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Kewal Singh vs The National Insurance Company Limited on 22 June, 2012

10. It has been held by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Meera Banolta, decided on 11.04.2011 that violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amounts to fundamental breach of law and in a case where such a breach of law is there, insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ramesh Kumar on 28 February, 2012

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since Ramesh Kumar did not possess a licence to drive transport vehicle, as his licence authorized him to drive only a light motor vehicle (non-transport), this is a case of fundamental and material breach of law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel upon an order of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd., versus Smt. Meera Banolta, decided on 11.04.2011.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1