Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)M/S. Murli Agro Products Ltd. vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 December, 2004
19. It is precisely this which has been articulated clearly by
the Commission in it's order in the case of Murli Agro
Products Ltd. versus Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd.(supra), para 13 (a) thereof, which reads as below:
Prem Vashisht vs Punjab National Bank on 9 August, 2023
2] Certified copy of the order passed in Consumer Complaint
bearing no.33 of 2003 titled as 'Mrs. Prem Vashisht Vs. The Punjab
National Bank & Anr.' be placed on this file.
Raghuraji Agro Industries (P) Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 20 May, 2015
Further, as already discussed in the preceding part of the judgment, in
M/s P.P. Agro Industries Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors.,
(supra), the Hon'ble National Commission in Para 20 has specifically
held, interalia, that "........This however cannot be taken to mean that
damage caused due to fire per se would stand excluded if the origin of
such fire lay in spontaneous combustion. Origin of Fire would be quite
immaterial as long as the factum of Fire was not in dispute and the
factum of damage and loss of property was established. Perhaps the only
exception to this would be an allegation of arson: however, in the case in
hand, there is no such allegation." Similar view is held by Hon'ble
National Commission in case "Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Versus Sukhdev Singh & Anr.', III (2010) CPJ 400. Further in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Taj Sugar Works & Anr., II (2002)
CPJ 43 (NC), the question before Hon'ble National Commission "Whether
spontaneous combustion equivalent to fire?" was answered in 'Yes'.
Similar was the view held by Hon'ble National Commission in Saraya
Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996)
CPJ 6 (NC).
M/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000
Further, as already discussed in the preceding part of the judgment, in
M/s P.P. Agro Industries Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors.,
(supra), the Hon'ble National Commission in Para 20 has specifically
held, interalia, that "........This however cannot be taken to mean that
damage caused due to fire per se would stand excluded if the origin of
such fire lay in spontaneous combustion. Origin of Fire would be quite
immaterial as long as the factum of Fire was not in dispute and the
factum of damage and loss of property was established. Perhaps the only
exception to this would be an allegation of arson: however, in the case in
hand, there is no such allegation." Similar view is held by Hon'ble
National Commission in case "Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Versus Sukhdev Singh & Anr.', III (2010) CPJ 400. Further in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Taj Sugar Works & Anr., II (2002)
CPJ 43 (NC), the question before Hon'ble National Commission "Whether
spontaneous combustion equivalent to fire?" was answered in 'Yes'.
Similar was the view held by Hon'ble National Commission in Saraya
Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996)
CPJ 6 (NC).
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.K.J. Corporation on 21 August, 1996
"22. Further, it is settled law that contract of insurance is
based upon good faith. It is the duty of the insurers and their
agents to disclose all material facts within their knowledge
since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the
assured [(Re. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M.K.J.
Corporation, (1996) 6 SCC 428)]. If the insurance coverage
was not extended even by taking additional premium for the
damage caused by spontaneous combustion/natural heating
which may not result in fire, it ought to have been clearly
stated.
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
In the case titled as Lucknow Development
Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award
just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a
consumer. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
21
considered opinion, if we award an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs each (in both these
complaints) as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by
the complainant for all the years together on account of deficiency in
rendering service and adopting unfair trade practice on the part of the
opposite parties, that will met the ends of justice.
Sh. Sushil Ansal vs Shri Charanjit Singh Sole Proprietor, ... on 22 November, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2003
Date of Institution 17.10.2003
Date of Decision 07.06.2024
Sh. V. K. Vashisht, Sole Proprietor, M/s. Chandigarh Sales Company,
Opposite Railway Road Shed, Railway Road, Chandigarh.
Consumer Education & Research Society & ... vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 19 March, 2013
21] This issue is no longer res integra in view of dictum laid down
by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Consumer Education
and Research Society & Anr. Vs. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Anr., II (2012) CPJ 142 (NC). In this case, the claim was
repudiated because there was no fire and the molasses got burnt due to
spontaneous combustion.
1