Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.59 seconds)
M/S Chandan Associates vs Micro Office, N.I.A.C. Ltd. on 26 November, 2015 cites

M/S. Harsolia Motors vs M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 December, 2004

National Commission also held in Harsolia Motors versus National Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2005(1) CLT Page 97 that whether insurance policy taken by commercial units could be held to be hiring of services for commercial purpose and thereby excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It was held that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not to generate profit. On the basis of law laid down by National Commission in the above-referred authority, it is amply clear that it is immaterial whether services have been hired for commercial purposes or not in a contract of insurance. The Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2013 15 contention raised by the OPs on this point is repelled by us on the basis of law, as discussed above.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 305 - Full Document

Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath vs Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 14 November, 1957

10. The next point canvassed is with regard to deduction of Rs.1,59,443/- on the ground that policy clause is not applicable. We are strictly governed by the Contract of Insurance in this case. In the policy document Ex.OP-1/1, it is set out that the insurance under the policy is subject to clauses like Clause 3 designation property clause, clause 4 reinstatement value policy clause, clause 5 local authorities clause. Since there is a express contract regarding the insurance under the policy, which is subject to clauses, hence the Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2013 23 contention of the complainant that amount of Rs.1,59,443/- has been wrongly deducted is not accepted by us. The further submission of the complainant is that amounts of Rs.60,341/-, Rs.39, 722/-, Rs.2,024/- and Rs.6,844/- have been wrongly deducted on account of dead stock by the surveyor. The surveyor gave the detailed report by preparing the inventory on the basis of record duly explaining it. Consequently, we do not find any force in the submission of the complainant that above-referred deductions have been wrongly made by OP no.1 and 2. Similarly, the deductions of 14.73%, 18.32% and loss to the extent of 10%, 25%, 50% and 100% in different items have not been proved to be wrong by the complainant by citing any cogent evidence before us. The counsel for the complainant referred to law laid down by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla in Chuni Lal versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in III(2007) CPJ 286 that in case of fire, no deductions allowed, as insured assets had been reduced to ashes. Next reliance of complainant is on law laid down by National Commission New Delhi in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. M/s Girdhari Lal Tulshi Ram Joshi, reported in 1 (1997) CPJ 50 (NC) that State Commission directed the OP to pay full insured amount, where the shop was reduced to ashes in the incident of fire.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 139 - Full Document

Amirali A. Mukadam vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 September, 2007

The reliance of the complainant is on letter Ex.CW-1/20, but we find that date of this letter i.e. 27.10.12 has been written with pen, which is out of symmetry of the typed letter. At the most, postal receipt Ex.CW-1/21 indicates that it was sent on 29.10.12 only. It is the subsequent invention of the mind of the complainant to move the letter and emails after receiving the above amount and then to press for more amount from the OPs. Undoubtedly, National Commission has held in Amirali A. Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2013 27 Mukadam versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2007) CPJ 234 (NC) that protest registered by complainant within reasonable time and if carries undue influence applied then insurance company is liable to pay interest on amount paid. We find no coercion or undue influence or misrepresentation has been proved on the record before us by the complainant in this case.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pradeep Kumar on 9 April, 2009

The complainant referred to law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Pradeep Kumar, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 46 (SC) that surveyor's report is not last and final word. It may be basis for settlement of claim, but neither binding upon insurer nor insured. The above law cited of the Apex Court is not disputed, but it must be proved by convincing evidence that report of surveyor is not correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 168 - R M Lodha - Full Document

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

Undoubtedly, the Apex Court has held in United India Insurance versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others, reported in 1999 (3) Page 499-500 that if consumer satisfies that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion, the authority would be justified in granting appropriate relief. We do not dispute the cited proposition of law laid down in this authority, but we find that there is no vitiating circumstance of discharging the voucher issued by complainant in favour of OPs towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. Consequently, complainant is not entitled to claim more than settled amount as complainant remained unable to establish it on the record. that discharge voucher is the result of fraud, undue influence, coercion on the part of OP no.1 and 2. The present complaint was Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2013 28 filed on 02.04.2013 by the complainant, whereas discharge voucher is dated 26.10.12 vide Ex.CW-1/36 on the record. We, thus, find no ground to enhance the insurance claim exceeding the claim already received by the complainant from OPs on the basis of discharge voucher towards full and final settlement of the claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 257 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case including the written submissions placed on record by OPs. The first point of argument before us by the OPs is that the complainant dealt in commercial activities and as such, the complainant is not a consumer. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant countered this point by submitting that insurance contract is primarily meant for reimbursement purposes and there is no question of commercial or non-commercial activities in such type of matter. The OPs referred to law laid down in "Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute", reported in II (1995) CPJ-1 (SC), "Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd.", reported in 1(2011) CPJ-1 (SC) and "Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd, & Anr." Reported in 1(2010) CPJ-4 (SC). We find that the above-referred authorities are on different footings and would not be applicable in Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2013 14 this case. There is a dispute pertaining to reimbursement of the loss sought from the insurer by the insured.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 950 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1