Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pradeep Kumar on 9 April, 2009
13. So far as the report of surveyor is concerned learned counsel for the
complainant has relied upon judgement in the case of Pradeep Kumar
(supra) whereas Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd.
Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr, IV (2021) CPJ 1 (SC), has
discussed the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) also and has come to the
conclusion that in paragraph No.38 as under : -
Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.(Presently ... vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 December, 2019
diminished/ destroyed. But the facts of present case is different and even
if for the sake of arguments the story of complainant is believed that the
sheet of the shed was uprooted due to storm and heavy wind and
consequently rain water entered to the stock of sponge iron which
contaminated with the sponge iron and incident of spontaneous
combustion occurred hence the principle laid down in Surashtra
Chemicals (supra) case is also not applicable in the facts of the present
case.
Khatema Fibres Ltd. vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 28 September, 2021
This issue has
already been discussed hereinabove in the light of judgement in Khatema
Fibres Ltd. (supra).
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Beena Raghav on 27 February, 2015
15. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon
judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in Giridhar Sampat
Lanjewar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2021) CPJ 73
(NC); Jaisri Mines Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
& Anr., II (2009) CPJ 123 (NC); Guinea Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 95 (NC); Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijya Srinivasa Cotton Co., III (2009) CPR 389
(NC); Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors., III (2010) CPJ 339 (NC); IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs.
Beena Raghav, III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Mehta Wool Store, 2008 NCJ 82 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Raj Kumar, I (2016) CPJ 555 (NC) and argued that the complainant
itself was negligent in maintenance of the sheds and keeping the stock of
the sponge iron and in such situation the Hon‟ble National Commission in
Girdhar Sampat Lanjewar (supra) case held the repudiation of claim
justified.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mehta Wool Store on 3 July, 2007
He has also argued that report of the surveyor is an evidence and
to be given importance and weightage in absence of overwhelming
evidence to contrary as held by Hon‟ble National Commission in Mehta
Wool Store (supra), Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bharat Oil & Animal Food Industry on 31 July, 2012
12. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon
judgement dated 09.04.2009 of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.3253 of 2002 between New India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pradeep Kumar and judgements of Hon‟ble National Commission in
Original Petition No.253 of 1999 between M/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd.
Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 10.12.2004 and in
Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2007 between Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.
Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 06.01.20015, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Oceanic Solvent Industries, in First Appeal
No.1595 of 2017 decided on 22.11.2017 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Bharat Oil & Animal Food Industry, First Appeal No.20 of 2007
decided on 31.07.2012 but the principle laid down in those cases are not
applicable in the facts of the instance case as they have different set of
facts.
Agrawal Structure Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 March, 2023
This Commission in its recent judgement dated 15.03.2023 in
Complaint Case No.CC/2018/50 between Agrawal Structure Mills Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has dealt with the same issue in
similar set of facts and in paragraph No.11 has held as under :-
Giridhar Sampat Lanjewar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 21 September, 2021
15. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon
judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in Giridhar Sampat
Lanjewar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2021) CPJ 73
(NC); Jaisri Mines Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
& Anr., II (2009) CPJ 123 (NC); Guinea Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 95 (NC); Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijya Srinivasa Cotton Co., III (2009) CPR 389
(NC); Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors., III (2010) CPJ 339 (NC); IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs.
Beena Raghav, III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Mehta Wool Store, 2008 NCJ 82 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Raj Kumar, I (2016) CPJ 555 (NC) and argued that the complainant
itself was negligent in maintenance of the sheds and keeping the stock of
the sponge iron and in such situation the Hon‟ble National Commission in
Girdhar Sampat Lanjewar (supra) case held the repudiation of claim
justified.
M/S. Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 5 May, 2010
He has also argued that report of the surveyor is an evidence and
to be given importance and weightage in absence of overwhelming
evidence to contrary as held by Hon‟ble National Commission in Mehta
Wool Store (supra), Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra).