Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Rajiv Kumar Son Of Shri Nand Kishore, ... vs M/S New India Assurance Company ... on 13 September, 2012 cites

Raj Kumar vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 July, 2011

Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the case file, we find that the complaint filed by Rajiv Kumar is not maintainable as the Insurance Policy was taken by M/s Madhu Enterprises and not by Rajiv Kumar. Secondly, it is admitted case of the parties that a sum of Rs.21,04,219/- has already been paid to M/s Madhu Enterprises as per the assessment made by the surveyor and the amount was received by Madhu Enterprises in full and final settlement as per consent letter Annexure R-5 produced on the record. The plea of the complainant that the amount of Rs.4,48,182/- was wrongly retained by the opposite party, is not sustainable because the title/ownership of the building was not proved to be in the name of M/s Madhu Enterprises. More so, undisputedly the amount of Rs.21,04,219/- was paid vide Discharge Voucher dated 21.10.2008 and the complaint was filed on 20.10.2009 i.e. after one year which is not sustainable in view of the judgment rendered by Honble National Consumer Commission in case cited as Raj KUMAR versus UNITED India INSURANCE CO. LTD., III(2011) CPJ 354 (NC) wherein the facts were that the claimant had claimed the amount of Rs.2,81,663/- but as per surveyors report the loss was assessed to the extent of Rs.1,41,417/-. The claimant had received the amount of Rs.1,41,417/- by signing the Discharge Voucher. Thereafter, the complainants claimed the balance amount of Rs.1,40,246/- by invoking the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum after two years. District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,27,414/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 19.5.1998 till the date of payment along cost of litigation of Rs.500/-. The appeal filed by the opposite party Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum was allowed by State Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside. Aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench, Jaipur, claimant filed revision petition before Honble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi which was dismissed with the following observations:-
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors on 12 August, 1999

National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I(2003) CPJ 37 (NC). We have gone through this judgment by which this Commission after convincing itself that the consent letter for full and final settlement from the complainant was obtained by the Insurance Company by misrepresentation, fraud or coercion or by exercising undue influence and applying the law laid down by the Honble Supremd Court in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors., II(1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI(1999) SLT 590=(1999) 6 SCC 400, allowed the claim of the complainant against the insurance Company. We, however, find that the facts and circumstances of this case are different and as rightly observed by the State Commission in its impugned order, the petitioner has not been able to show that the discharge voucher in question was obtained by the Insurance Company by undue influence, threat or misrepresentation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 257 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1