Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Sikka Papers Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 May, 2009
The contentions of learned counsel for OP that under General Conditions of the insurance policy, if there is any dispute or difference with contempt to be paid after admitting their liability it has to be resolved through the process of arbitration does not arise at all in view of not initiating arbitration proceedings by parties in right time and when complainant had invoked Sec.03 of CPA, 1986 by raising complaint under Sec.17 of CPA, 1986, now, OP cannot contend that Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint case initiated by complainant. Learned counsel for OP placed a decision reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2834 in the case of Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others wherein held - there was an element of under insurance in complainant's policy - in view thereof, Surveyor applied pro-rata formula and deducted 25.71% from the loss so assessed - Such deduction cannot be faulted. Such deduction cannot be pointed as no relevance herein this case since when complainant had shown that Chemmanur Jewellery and Chemmanur Impex Limited are distinct and different entities having obtained separate policy for the stock coverage.
G.N. Hallmarking & Refinery Private ... vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. on 23 August, 2021
Learned counsel for complainant placed a reliance in FA/1439/2014 decided by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case between G.N.Halmarking and Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited and another wherein on similar facts directed insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant along with interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till realization and held incident of theft comes under the deficiency of service and the OP under the terms and conditions of the policy is bound to indemnify the loss sustained by complainant in its entirety, since enquiry discloses Chemmanur Jewellers and Chemmanur Impex Limited are two distinct entities, having separate insurance risk coverage obtained by OP and to find support not only the evidence of Mr.Jagadish C, General Manager of complainant, but also the affidavit evidence of the surveyor Mr.M.V.Radhakrishnan, come to the assistance of complainant to prove that OP consciously ignored addendum report, which was based on the statement made by the insured that with regard to the gold outside the premises under the control of Chemmanur Impex, which is also having a separate insurance cover and sister concern of the insured. Therefore, the value of the gold outside the premises should not be taken into account while determining adequacy of insurance coverage. We have also examined not only the extract of stock register, statement furnished by Chemmanur Impex but also invoices, which would corroborate not only the addendum report submitted by surveyor but also the affidavit evidence of Mr.Jagadish C, General Manager and Mr.Aloshious, S/o K.P.Paul. It is to be noted herein that Mr.M.V.Radhakrishnan, authorized surveyor submitted addendum report dated 27.02.2013 is marked through OP as Ex.R7 yet was ignored as opined very consciously, is nothing but rendering deficiency in service and it comes within the purview of CPA, 1986. In other words, OP is amenable to CPA, 1986 for not settling the insurance claim submitted by complainant as per terms and conditions of the polcy admitted by OP. We have examined terms and conditions of policy issued by OP, Copy of Report made to Police, Copy of FIR submitted by Mr.K.J.Raju who was in-charge of shop, Claim submitted by complainant to OP which are marked as Ex.C1 to C13. We have also examined Ex.R1 proposal form dated 10.03.2008, Terms and Conditions of insurance policy marked as per Ex.R2, Additional Endorsement marked as Ex.R3, Surveyor Report dated 31.12.2011 marked as Ex.R4. Two letters, one is dated 11.07.2015 and another is dated 06.02.2013 marked as Ex.R5 and R6 and Addendum Report dated 29.08.2012 marked as Ex.R7, which of course support the case of the complainant as discussed by us above.
1