Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ajit Kumar on 4 September, 2013 cites

Jagdish Parshad vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... on 14 May, 2013

Further, in another case, Jagdish Parshad versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2013)CPJ 578 (NC)], the National Commission had taken a similar view saying that negligence on the part of the complainant leaving the vehicle unattended and unlocked was sufficient to hold that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The facts in this case were almost similar to the present case as the driver and cleaner had left the vehicle unattended on road, with keys within the said vehicle for urination and in the meanwhile, some unknown persons had taken away the said vehicle.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Limited, vs Ajit Kumar, on 10 March, 2008

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER   This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company) against the impugned order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. FA-07/849, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Ajit Kumar, vide which while allowing the appeal, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri allowing the complaint filed by the respondent was slightly modified and the awarded amount of Rs.2.65 lakh by the District Forum was reduced by 5% on account of depreciation of the value of the vehicle in question.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The New India Assurance vs T.V. Sarathi on 19 March, 2009

3. At the time of arguments before us, learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company stated that the complainant/respondent, as per his own version had left the car unlocked on road and hence violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. It had been stated in the general conditions to the policy that, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage.. In his statement recorded by Shri Sanjeev Nijhawan, investigator, appointed by the petitioner, the complainant stated that, at the time of incident, the key was in the car which has been taken away with car and duplicate key is with me. In the complaint, however, he stated that he had taken away the ignition key and went for urination and the second key of the car was there in the briefcase, kept inside the car. This was an apparent contradiction in the stand taken by the complainant. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order passed by this Commission in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus T.V. Sarathi [RP No. 2555 of 2005 dated 19.03.2009], in which it has been stated that the insurance company would not be liable to loss/damage of the unattended property, if the insured was found negligent in safeguarding the said property.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1