Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)

Balwinder Kumar Son Of Sh. Kirpal Chand` vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 19 December, 2012

In addition to that, the judgment has also been delivered by District Forum Sangrur in complaint no.435, decided on 19.10.2010 titled as "Ram Chand Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 51 another", wherein the liability of OPs was fixed, which was on the premise that OP no.2 was the authorized agent of OP no.1. On the basis of above referred documents, we hold that OP no.2 is the authorized agent of OP no.1. There is categorical evidence of the complainants contained in affidavits of complainants in all above referred complaints that premiums were duly paid to OP no.2, who received the same on behalf of OP no.1, as its authorized agent and resultantly the insurance cover notes were issued to the complainants on behalf of OP no.1. The reliance of counsel for the appellant is on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, we find that there is no scope of issuance of cover note/insurance policy without receiving the premium. The payment of premium to authorized agent is deemed to be the payment received on behalf of principal. OP no.1 has not taken any action against OP no.2 for the embezzlement of this amount, as no police report lodged against it is on the record to prove it. No termination of agreement between OP no.1 and OP no.2 has been proved on record nor any disciplinary action which was taken nor any show cause notice was ever issued by OP no.1 to OP no.2 on the record. In the circumstances of the above cases, we repel the submission of counsel for the appellant that cover notes were issued without any premium in above referred complaints. This is interse matter between OP no.1 and Op no.2 to take action at their own level and poor complainants cannot be made to suffer for it. We, thus, hold that complainants are proved to be the consumers of OP no.1 on the basis of cover note/insurance policy purchased by the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 52 complainants for the coverage of their paddy crops for the reason 2009.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1