Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (4.29 seconds)
Rajesh Bhandari vs B.M. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. & ... on 7 January, 2016 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nitin Khandelwal on 8 May, 2008

13. The question whether the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the insured for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the case of theft of vehicle came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 458 - D Bhandari - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Gian Chand And Others on 2 September, 1997

Looking to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in Mohd. Unis vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Baljeet v. United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra), it appears that the breach was not a fundamental breach and hence the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) was required to pay compensation at least on non-standard basis to the appellant (complainant).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 223 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shyam Sunder on 5 May, 2014

dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS A 09- mRrjoknh Øekad&1@vukosnd Øekad&1 dh vksj ls milatkr gksus okys vf/koDrk Jh f'kf'kj HkaMkjdj dk rdZ gS fd ftyk Qksje dk vkns'k iw.kZr% fof/klEer~ gS A ifjoknh us tks izFke lwpuk&i= ntZ djk;k gS] mlesa mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd og ykWd djuk Hkwy x;k Fkk vkSj vius eksckbZy dks pkftZax ds fy, okgu esa NksM+ fn;k Fkk A bl izdkj ifjoknh }kjk ?kksj mis{kk cjrk x;k gS vkSj ifjoknh dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gh okgu dh pksjh gqbZ Fkh ] blfy, ifjoknh us chek 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k gS vkSj ifjoknh fdlh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A ftyk Qksje us tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS ] fof/klEer~ vkns'k gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gS A vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy fujLr fd;k tkos A vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- dh vksj ls TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs NIKHIL SETH , IV(2015)CPJ 195 (NC) , ,oa ORIETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SHYAM SUNDER II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC) dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS A 10- mRrjoknh Øekad&2@vukosnd Øekad&2 mifLFkr ugha gS A // 8 // 11- geus mHk;&i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dk rdZ Jo.k fd;k A ftyk Qksje ds vfHkys[k ,oa vkyksP; vkns'k dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A 12 vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- us tks TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs NIKHIL SETH , IV(2015)CPJ 195 (NC) mijksDrkuqlkj U;k; n`"Vkar dk voyacu fy;k gS mlds rF; bl izdj.k ds rF; ls iw.kZr% fHkUu gS A mDr izdj.k esa pksjh dh lwpuk foyac ls fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlesa pksjh dh ?kVuk dks Hkh lansgkLin ekuk x;k Fkk rFkk izFke lwpuk&i= Hkh 2 fnu foyac ls ntZ djk;k x;k Fkk A bl vk/kkj ij Mªk;oj us tks dFku fd;k Fkk ] mls lansgkLin ekurs gq, fd ?kVuk lansgkLin gS ] bl vk/kkj ij ] nkok fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk ] tcfd bl izdj.k ds rF; iw.kZr% mDr U;k;&n`"Vkar ls fHkUu gS A blh izdkj ORIETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SHYAM SUNDER II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC) dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS ] mldk rF; bl izdj.k ds rF; ls fHkUu gS vkSj bldk ykHk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- ugha feyrk gS A 13- ifjoknh ds vuqlkj ?kVuk fnukad&08-07-2013 dh gS A ifjoknh dh vksj ls izFke lwpuk&i= dh izfr izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftlds vuqlkj mlus ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ fnukad&09-07-2013 dks gh lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkuk xat ] jk;iqj esa fd;k Fkk ] tgka /kkjk&379 Hkk-na-la- iathc) fd;k x;k // 9 // Fkk A vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- }kjk ;g vk{ksi ugha fd;k x;k gS fd lwpuk foyac ls nh xbZ gS rFkk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- us dsoy bl vk/kkj ij ] nkok fujLr fd;k gS fd ifjoknh ds gh ykijokgh ds dkj.k okgu pksjh gqvk gS ] tks fd ikWfylh fu;e ,oa 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gS A bl izdkj Li"V gS fd bl izdj.k esa ifjoknh us dfFkr pksjh dh ?kVuk dh lwpuk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- dks vfoyac iznku dj fn;k gS vkSj dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fu;e ,oa 'krZ Øekad&4 gS ] mldk mYya?ku gqvk gS] vihykFkhZ@ifjoknh ds laiw.kZ nkos dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, vs Nikhil Seth on 10 February, 2009

dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS A 09- mRrjoknh Øekad&1@vukosnd Øekad&1 dh vksj ls milatkr gksus okys vf/koDrk Jh f'kf'kj HkaMkjdj dk rdZ gS fd ftyk Qksje dk vkns'k iw.kZr% fof/klEer~ gS A ifjoknh us tks izFke lwpuk&i= ntZ djk;k gS] mlesa mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd og ykWd djuk Hkwy x;k Fkk vkSj vius eksckbZy dks pkftZax ds fy, okgu esa NksM+ fn;k Fkk A bl izdkj ifjoknh }kjk ?kksj mis{kk cjrk x;k gS vkSj ifjoknh dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k gh okgu dh pksjh gqbZ Fkh ] blfy, ifjoknh us chek 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k gS vkSj ifjoknh fdlh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A ftyk Qksje us tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS ] fof/klEer~ vkns'k gS] mlesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gS A vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy fujLr fd;k tkos A vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- dh vksj ls TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs NIKHIL SETH , IV(2015)CPJ 195 (NC) , ,oa ORIETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SHYAM SUNDER II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC) dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS A 10- mRrjoknh Øekad&2@vukosnd Øekad&2 mifLFkr ugha gS A // 8 // 11- geus mHk;&i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dk rdZ Jo.k fd;k A ftyk Qksje ds vfHkys[k ,oa vkyksP; vkns'k dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A 12 vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- us tks TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs NIKHIL SETH , IV(2015)CPJ 195 (NC) mijksDrkuqlkj U;k; n`"Vkar dk voyacu fy;k gS mlds rF; bl izdj.k ds rF; ls iw.kZr% fHkUu gS A mDr izdj.k esa pksjh dh lwpuk foyac ls fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk mlesa pksjh dh ?kVuk dks Hkh lansgkLin ekuk x;k Fkk rFkk izFke lwpuk&i= Hkh 2 fnu foyac ls ntZ djk;k x;k Fkk A bl vk/kkj ij Mªk;oj us tks dFku fd;k Fkk ] mls lansgkLin ekurs gq, fd ?kVuk lansgkLin gS ] bl vk/kkj ij ] nkok fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk ] tcfd bl izdj.k ds rF; iw.kZr% mDr U;k;&n`"Vkar ls fHkUu gS A blh izdkj ORIETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SHYAM SUNDER II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC) dk voyacu fy;k x;k gS ] mldk rF; bl izdj.k ds rF; ls fHkUu gS vkSj bldk ykHk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- ugha feyrk gS A 13- ifjoknh ds vuqlkj ?kVuk fnukad&08-07-2013 dh gS A ifjoknh dh vksj ls izFke lwpuk&i= dh izfr izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftlds vuqlkj mlus ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ fnukad&09-07-2013 dks gh lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkuk xat ] jk;iqj esa fd;k Fkk ] tgka /kkjk&379 Hkk-na-la- iathc) fd;k x;k // 9 // Fkk A vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- }kjk ;g vk{ksi ugha fd;k x;k gS fd lwpuk foyac ls nh xbZ gS rFkk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- us dsoy bl vk/kkj ij ] nkok fujLr fd;k gS fd ifjoknh ds gh ykijokgh ds dkj.k okgu pksjh gqvk gS ] tks fd ikWfylh fu;e ,oa 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gS A bl izdkj Li"V gS fd bl izdj.k esa ifjoknh us dfFkr pksjh dh ?kVuk dh lwpuk vukosnd Øekad&1@fn U;w bafM;k ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfe- dks vfoyac iznku dj fn;k gS vkSj dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fu;e ,oa 'krZ Øekad&4 gS ] mldk mYya?ku gqvk gS] vihykFkhZ@ifjoknh ds laiw.kZ nkos dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

National Insurance Company vs Lajwanti on 18 January, 2006

15. National Insurance Company v. Lajwanti, II (2007) CPJ 48 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %& the vehicle was stolen on 19.01.2002 at about 4.00 a.m. and report was lodged on the same day under Section 379, IPC and despite best efforts made by Police, the car could not be traced. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that stolen was doubtful. The State Commission allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the complainant and National Commission upheld the finding recorded by the State Commission.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs J. P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. on 16 September, 2009

14. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %& "There has been catena of decisions of the National Commission and also Hon'ble Apex Court and the issue is no longer res integra that in case of theft of vehicle, issue of breach of policy condition (s) was not germane to the issue and we profitably refer to few decisions of the National Commission in the matters of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., (R.P No.643 / 2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (R.P. No.2097), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sou.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sou Chanda Sunil Sawant on 23 December, 2010

14. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %& "There has been catena of decisions of the National Commission and also Hon'ble Apex Court and the issue is no longer res integra that in case of theft of vehicle, issue of breach of policy condition (s) was not germane to the issue and we profitably refer to few decisions of the National Commission in the matters of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., (R.P No.643 / 2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (R.P. No.2097), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sou.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next