Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi on 14 December, 1999
In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar
Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, the Court elaborately considered the
provisions of Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) as well as earlier
decisions and held that :-
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Insurance Act, 1938
M/S. National Aluminium Co. Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & on 24 June, 2013
"We find no merit in the contention put forward by the
insurance company that a complaint relating to the failure on
the part of the insurer to settle the claim of the insured within a
reasonable time and the prayer for the grant of compensation in
respect of such delay will not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection
// 14 //
Act. The provision of facilities in connection with insurance
has been specifically included within the scope of the express
'service' by the definition of the said word contained in Section
2(i)(o) of the Act. Our attention was invited by Mr. Malhotra,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the decision of
the Queen's Bench in National Transit Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Customs and Central Excise Commissioner, (1975) (1)
all England Reports Page 303) The observations contained in
the said judgment relating to the scope of the expression
'insurance' occurring the schedule of the enactment referred to
therein are of no assistance at all to us in this case because the
context in which the expression is used in the English
enactment considered in the case is entirely different. Having
regard to the philosophy of the Consumer Protection Act and its
avowed object of providing cheap and speedy redressal to
consumers affected by the failure on the part of persons
providing "service" for a consideration, we do not find it
possible to hold that the settlement of insurance claims will not
be covered by the expression "insurance" occurring in Section
2(1)(d). Whenever there is a default or negligence in regard to
such settlement of an insurance claim that will constitute a
'deficiency' in the service on the part of the Insurance company
and it will be perfectly open to the concerned aggrieved
consumer to approach the Redressal Forums under the Act
seeking appropriate relief. We, accordingly over the objection
raised by the Insurance Company regarding the jurisdiction of
the State Commission to adjudicate upon the complaint.
The Companies Act, 1956
The Branch Manager, L.I.C.I. & Anr. vs Smt. Uma Kar. on 28 November, 2011
In The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Uma Devi, 1991 (1) CPR
662 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, observed thus :-
1