Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Synco Industries vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur And Ors on 15 January, 2002
However, we find that the facts and circumastance of the cases
under citation being different, they cannot be made applicable for
current case. For example, in the case of Synco Industries vs. State
Bank of Bikanes and Jaipur - (2002) 2 SCC 1, the complainant had
claimed Rs.15 crores and further Rs.60 lakhs for additional claim
covering the cost of traveling and other cost which is not subject of the
present complaint. Similarly, in case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. -
Mahesh Patel, there was mis-declaration in the proposal form and false
claim regarding the status of respondent's wife as a teacher etc. which
required detailed enquiry etc., but the same is not the case in the
present complaint. In this connection, we also rely on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12/08/2002 in case of
Dr.J.J.Merchant and ors. vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, wherein complicated
issues are involved can also be decided as per the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, considering all these aspects the
contention of the learned counsel Mr.S.R.Singh cannot be accepted. We,
therefore, give our finding in affirmative in respect of this issue.
Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Munimahesh Patel on 12 September, 2006
Section 24 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Cnanasoundri vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 March, 2002
The learned counsel for the complainant has referred the judgment
dated 13/03/2002 in the matter of - Cnanasoundri vs. Oriental
Insurance Co.Ltd.. In this case, the record pertaining to the damages
due to fire was lost and the person who was prosecuting the case also
died, but it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in order
not to deprive the complainant, the insurance company could have
ascertained certain loss on the basis of available record. Thus, on the
basis of principle laid in the said case law, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the complainant, that though sufficient record was produced
it was not difficult for the opponent to assess the loss. However, though
the matter was lying with surveyor for two years, he failed to assess the
loss.
1