Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)
The New India Assurance Company Ltd, ... vs Vijitha Oil Company,Ukkayapalli ... on 25 August, 2010 cites

Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009

But it is not so happened only minor fire accident occurred and resulted in small loss. This is evidently a surmise without any basis. Importantly he did not allege any foul play. He assessed the net loss at Rs. 1,49,336/- after deducting policy excess. He did not say that the bills were fabricated or that there was foul play. Obviously not satisfied with his report, the insurance company had appointed yet another investigator, though the Honble Supreme Court time and again deprecated the practice of appointing surveyor after surveyor till a report is received to its liking. They have to give reasons if they intend to appoint vide Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriential Insurance Company reported in II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 367 - H L Dattu - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. vs Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. on 12 July, 2002

14) The learned counsel for the appellant relying a decision of Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Roshanlal Oil Mills Ltd. reported in (200) 10 SCC 19 contended that without considering the surveyor report the claim should not be allowed. No doubt it was held it is an important document and non-consideration of it would result in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgement. This contention has no place when the insurance company itself has appointed surveyor after surveyor till a report came to its satisfaction contrary to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra. When the insurance company has appointed another investigator, after a long gap of time it did not mention why it did not accept the report of the first surveyor in order to justify appointment of second investigator. In fact it ought to have given reasons for appointing second investigator. We may state that on perusal of investigation report it would show that investigator must have been directed to gather some evidence for repudiating the just claim. The second investigator accordingly without any basis submitted a report by pointing out a discrepancy here and a discrepancy there which would not go into the merits of the matter and finally repudiated. Obviously that was the reason why the investigating agency while thanking the insurance company for entrusting job mentioned We thank you for entrusting this job to us and hope our report is up to your expectations and satisfaction. We always look forward to be associated with you more frequently to develop our mutual business prospects and benefits. Vide Ex. B6. This would connote that the investigator has obliged the insurance company and such a report was given in furtherance of business interests of both sides. This was really unfortunate.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1