Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Section 2 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
M/S. National Aluminium Co. Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & on 24 June, 2013
"We find no merit in the contention put forward by the
insurance company that a complaint relating to the failure on
the part of the insurer to settle the claim of the insured within a
reasonable time and the prayer for the grant of compensation
in respect of such delay will not fall within the jurisdiction of
the Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer
Protection Act. The provision of facilities in connection with
insurance has been specifically included within the scope of the
express 'service' by the definition of the said word contained in
Section 2(i)(o) of the Act. Our attention was invited by Mr.
Malhotra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the
decision of the Queen's Bench in National Transit Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Customs and Central Excise Commissioner,
(1975) (1) all England Reports Page 303) The observations
contained in the said judgment relating to the scope of the
expression 'insurance' occurring the schedule of the enactment
referred to therein are of no assistance at all to us in this case
because the context in which the expression is used in the
English enactment considered in the case is entirely different.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi on 14 December, 1999
// 14 //
In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar
Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, the Court elaborately considered the
provisions of Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) as well as earlier
decisions and held that :-
The Insurance Act, 1938
Section 45 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Divisional Railway Manager vs Smt. Uma Devi on 22 April, 2016
16. The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Uma Devi, 1991 (1) CPR 662
(NC), esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%&
"8. The very fact that the Insurance Act provides for a machinery
for remedy for grievances arising out of repudiation of a claim under
section 45 leads to show that the Corporation has to satisfy a Court
that the repudiation was justified. Accordingly, it is for the consumer
to choose a forum convenient to him to seek remedy for the loss
suffered because of deficiency in service. As the provisions of this Act
are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time
being in force, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint and to investigate whether the repudiation was justified
or not and to grant such relief as deems fit if it is satisfied that there
was deficiency in service.
1