Inderjit Singh

This tag is associated with 2 posts

a new truck/trolla was stolen. The FIR was lodged.The truck/trolla of the respondents was of 2001 Model. Its value as per the insurance policy for the period from 31.5.2003 to 30.5.2004 was Rs. 7 lacs. The theft had taken place on the night of 9.2.2004 i.e. after the expiry of about 8 months from the starting date of the insurance policy. Therefore, depreciation @10% would be justified. Therefore, the appellant is held entitled to the insurance claim for an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.7,00,000/- – 10% i.e. Rs.70,000/-= Rs.6,30,000/-). However, the learned District Forum had applied the depreciation @40% which appears to be unjustified. 20. The interest awarded by the learned District Forum @9% p.a. from 12.5.2004 upto the furnishing of the indemnity bond by the appellant is upheld. The indemnity bond was to be furnished by the respondents as per the order of the learned District Forum within a period of 1 ½ months after the receipt of a copy of this order. Since the appellant had filed the appeal in this Commission after obtaining a copy of the impugned order dated 12.5.2004 on 9.8.2005, therefore, the interest is limited upto 30.9.2005. 21. The costs of Rs.1000/- are upheld.”- After obtaining the insurance policy the petitioner had used the abovesaid vehicle for about 9 months. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2001. The passage of nine months must have further depreciated the value of the said vehicle. Consequently, depreciation at the rate of 10% appears to be quite reasonable. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI    REVISION PETITION NO.  1928 OF  2011  (Against the order dated 01.03.2011 in  First Appeal No. 1025 of 2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)   Inderjit Singh S/o Narinder Singh R/o House No. 17490, Gali Khadar Bhandar Wali, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda                                                                   … Petitioner Versus National Insurance Company Limited The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager,                                              … Respondent     BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, … Continue reading

“The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in rank, will not be in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully, as senior functionaries of the State in the Police Department and political leaders are being named. By this we are not casting any doubts on the investigating team, but it 20 seems that political and administrative compulsions are making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth. Apart from revolving around a few persons who have been named in the status report, nothing worthwhile is coming out regarding the interrogation of the police officers, political leaders and others. The investigation seems to have slowed down because of political considerations. Not less than eight police officials, political leaders, Advocates, Municipal Councilors and number of persons from the general public have been named in the status report. We feel that justice would not be done to the case, if it stays in the hands of the Punjab Police. Having said this, we want to make one thing very clear that the team comprising of Shri Ishwar Chander, D.I.G, Shri L.K. Yadav, S.S.P. Moga and Shri Bhupinder Singh, D.S.P. have done a commendable job in unearthing the scam. We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the C.B.I.”

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 792 OF 2008 State of Punjab …… Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. …… Respondents J U D G M E N T A.K. PATNAIK, J. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution has been filed by … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com