Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)
Lalita Devi vs Lic on 2 February, 2009 cites

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs Basanti Devi And Anr on 28 September, 1999

mijksDr :fyax~l esa ;g Hkh fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vxj Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe PRINCIPAL dh gSfl;r ls vkSj fu;kstd AGENT dh gSfl;r ls e`rd dks izhfe;e ds ckjs esa lwpuk ugha nsrk gS] rks nksuksa ftEesnkj gksrs gSa vkSj mudh ftEesnkjh LIABILITY la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd i`Fkd gksrh gSA blh izdkj dk fl)kUr ekuuh; jk"Vªh; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx us Additional Director, Postal Life Insurance Policy Vs. Sneh Lata and anr. (II(2006) CPJ 45 (NC) okys fu.kZ; esa fuEu izdkj izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS& "In a recent decision in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar, V (2005) SLT 567, Appeal Civil 6028 of 2002, decided on 28.7.05, the Supreme Court while affirming the decision in Basanti Devi's case (supra) held that it is the liability of both the insurer and agent to pay the insured amount. Respondent no.2, thus, could not have been absolved of the liability to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest by the State Commission."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 154 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Additional Director, Postal Life ... vs Sneh Lata And Anr. on 14 September, 2005

mijksDr :fyax~l esa ;g Hkh fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vxj Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe PRINCIPAL dh gSfl;r ls vkSj fu;kstd AGENT dh gSfl;r ls e`rd dks izhfe;e ds ckjs esa lwpuk ugha nsrk gS] rks nksuksa ftEesnkj gksrs gSa vkSj mudh ftEesnkjh LIABILITY la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd i`Fkd gksrh gSA blh izdkj dk fl)kUr ekuuh; jk"Vªh; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx us Additional Director, Postal Life Insurance Policy Vs. Sneh Lata and anr. (II(2006) CPJ 45 (NC) okys fu.kZ; esa fuEu izdkj izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS& "In a recent decision in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar, V (2005) SLT 567, Appeal Civil 6028 of 2002, decided on 28.7.05, the Supreme Court while affirming the decision in Basanti Devi's case (supra) held that it is the liability of both the insurer and agent to pay the insured amount. Respondent no.2, thus, could not have been absolved of the liability to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest by the State Commission."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1