Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.02 seconds)Lic Of India & Anr. vs Smt.Ranjit Kaur on 11 July, 2011
In another case reported as Life Insurance Corporation
of India v. Ranjit Kaur 2011 (3) CPJ 232, which has been relied upon
by the District Commission, the circumstances were similar. The
relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
Section 41 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Smt.Rita Devi & Ors vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 27 April, 2000
"17. Firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Rita Devi (supra), the
Apex Court considered and interpreted a phrase providing "death
due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle". Thereafter,
the Court referred to various decisions and arrived at a conclusion
that they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the
deceased, Dashrath Singh, was employed to drive an auto rickshaw
for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day the auto-rickshaw
was parked at auto-rickshaw stand and unknown passengers
engaged the said auto-rickshaw for their journey and during that
journey, it was alleged that the passengers caused murder of
Dashrath Singh. The Apex Court held that death in such case
was due to accident. The Court further observed that the
difference between 'murder which is not an accident' and
'murder with is an accident' depends on the proximity of the
cause of such murder. If the cause of murder or act of murder was
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 18
originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of
any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising
out of the use of motor vehicle and held that the insurance company
was liable to reimburse the claimant.
Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 100 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Maninder Singh Patwari And Other on 30 March, 2022
Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant was not
falling under the definition of 'consumer', as she had neither paid any
premium nor availed any facility under the scheme. The State
Government had also issued a Notification dated 02.05.2016 for
settlement of the disputes of the stakeholders by the District Grievance
Redressal Committee (DGRC) but the complainant did not move any
representation before the said committee and as such the complainant
was not entitled for any claim. The District Commission has failed to
take into consideration all these facts and circumstances and the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also
relied upon the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Maninder Singh Patwari & Ors. as well as the
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 9
judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission reported as
2006 CLT 253 but no copy of said judgment had been supplied.
Narinder Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 14 September, 2022
20. Similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble National
Commission in R.P. No.2805 of 2016 (Narinder Kumar v. Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) decided on 14.09.2022. The
relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble National as mentioned
in Paras-8 & 9 is reproduced as under:
Lawrence & Mayo (I) P.Ltd. vs L.I.C.Of India . on 6 July, 2015
31. Same issue was there before the Hon'ble National
Commission in the case of Maya Devi (supra). The relevant portion of
said judgment as mentioned in Para-17 & 18 is reproduced as under: