Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)
Asgar Khan vs Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr on 17 February, 2020 cites

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ajay Sinha & Anr on 13 May, 2008

The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha and another (supra) are thus not attracted to the facts of this case, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the the theft was disputed and there was no material to 7 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 04:52:42 ::: LPA No.1409 of 2016(O&M) [8] suggest that the vehicle had been stolen as against the facts of this case, where there is an F.I.R. and a cancellation report......."
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 68 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insuarance on 4 October, 2017

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 has held that claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds. On the question of delay, it was held that the condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. The relevant observations are :
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 133 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ram Kumari And Ors 24 Mac/390/2015 ... on 30 January, 2018

13. In Bharti Axa Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Monu Yadav (P&H), 2014(56) RCR(Civil) 48, a Ld. Single Judge of this Court referred to the instructions dated 20.09.2011, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) emphasising that insurance companies should not repudiate genuine claims on technical grounds including of delay in giving intimation or in submission of documents particularly when the police has been promptly informed about the theft. In that case the insurance Company had challenged the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon directing it to pay the insured amount for theft of the insured vehicle. The vehicle was stolen between 18.04.2012 and 20.04.2012. Information regarding theft of vehicle was immediately given to the local Police whereupon FIR No.142 dated 20.04.2012, under Section 379 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Hari 10 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2020 04:52:42 ::: LPA No.1409 of 2016(O&M) [11] Nagar, New Delhi. The police could not trace the vehicle. An untraced report was filed on 26.05.2012. Information regarding theft was given to the Insurance Company after a delay of 54 days. The company pleaded violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy, as timely investigation could not be conducted because of the delay in intimation. The Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the claim. The writ petition filed by the Insurance company was dismissed. It was observed:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 233 - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Permanent Lok Adalat on 6 July, 2012

11. A Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Ferozepur (P&H), 2013(5) RCR(Civil) 64 has held that to establish a claim of insurance, it is sufficient that there should be a valid F.I.R. with supportive follow up action which may be a cancellation report submitted by the police and, that should be enough to release the claim of insurance. The relevant observations are as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - M Grover - Full Document
1