Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Khatema Fibres Ltd. vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 28 September, 2021
10. Reliance is also placed on the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatima Fibres Ltd. VS. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009
Morevoer, as per the IRDA guidelines, the surveyor was to be submit its report within 30 days and the same had not been done. The complainant has submitted that there was no communication from the surveyor during this period and that they had to start their shop again which is situated at prime place i.e. in Connaught Place and that they were suffering losses due to their inability to run the shop. The Appellant has not placed on record any letter written by the surveyor to insured during this period or that he ever visited till 16.08.2010 for determining the actual loss of the stocks at the site. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under:
Section 9 in The Insurance Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs D.S. Dhanda Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2019
13. In this case, the surveyor was appointed on 11.05.2010 and he visited site on 12.05.2010 and he submitted his report only in January 2011 i.e. after about eight months. The surveyor certainly was required to submit his claim within 30 days and in any circumstance submit its report within 30 days and extension can only be sought with information to the insured. In the present case, the surveyor has not only violated Regulation (2) but it had also not done the needful and made no efforts to physically verify the actual loss by segregating the damaged goods. Therefore the State Commission has rightly relied upon the documents submitted by the complainant before the State Commission and also supplied to the surveyor, while giving its findings. From the facts and circumstances of this case, the State Commission has rightly rejected the calculation done by the surveyor in his report and relying on the documents supplied by the complainant, granted the compensation on non standard basis. The State Commission besides granting compensation in form of interest @ 9% also paid compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes PanchkulaPvt Limited Vs. D.S.Dhanda Etc. Etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318has clearly held that once the compensation in the form of interest has been awarded, the compensation on different heads should not be granted.
Section 64 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
M/S. Maa Ashish Textile Industries ... vs M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd on 3 June, 2019
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Regulation 9 (2) of IRDA ( Protection of Policy Holder's Interests) Regulations, 2022 ( in short, the 'Regulations'') and has submitted that surveyor was duty bound to communicate his findings to the insured within 30 days and surveyor had not done so and, therefore, has acted in violation of 9 (2) of Regulations. It is further argued that surveyor can seek extension of time only after due intimation to the insured and insurer and the surveyor in this case has not done so and, therefore, has violated the regulation and acted contrary to the duties assigned to him. Reliance has also been placed on the findings of the Bombay High Court in Maa Ashish Textile Industries Private Limited ( supra ) wherein Bombay High Court has placed reliance on Regulation 9 (2 ), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of wherein it has been held that surveyor appointed by the insurer shall communicate his findings to the insured within 30 days of his appointment.
1