insurance co ltd

This tag is associated with 26 posts

On the point of ‘burglar proof safe’, the say of the complainant is that at the time of obtaining the policy during 1995 he had enclosed along with the proposal form the design and plan of the strong room/safe, which stated that the vault would be embedded into the wall and would be made of a steel structure and only after their approval that the design was adequate to meet the safety requirement, he had got the same fabricated on the spot, which was further inspected by the representative of the opposite party-Insurance Company before accepting the proposal. It is only thereafter that the policy was issued and has been renewed from year to year. We quite agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that it is too late in the day for the opposite party-Insurance Company to now say that the safe was not ‘burglar proof’ having renewed the policy for a period of five years. The denial by the opposite party-Insurance Company that no such approval to the design or inspection of the fault/strong room was ever carried out by their representative would not cut much ice for the simple reason that in the absence of any schedule/design having been given to the complainant to suit their safety requirement, the objection cannot be treated as tenable or valid. -“Insurance Companies in genuine and bonafide claims of insured should not adopt the attitude of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other. This attitude puts a serious question mark on their credibility and trustworthiness. By adopting honest approach and attitude the insurance companies would save enormous litigation costs.” This observation of the Hon’ble Apex is fully applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that if the opposite party-Insurance Company was not satisfied with the report of their surveyor, they ought to have sought further clarification from the surveyor on the points of disagreement and even thereafter if they were not satisfied, they ought to have referred the matter to a second surveyor before finally arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not to repudiate the claim. We further notice that the opposite party-Insurance Company has taken more than eight months to consider the report of the surveyor and only when the complainant pursued his case relentlessly that they have finally repudiated the claim. This was not expected of a service provider like the opposite party-Insurance Company and, therefore, they are liable for the deficiency in service.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 5 OF 2003   Champaklal Hansraj Shah Sole Proprietor of RUSHABH JEWELLERS 2, Super Markets, Monghibhai Road Vile Parle (East) Mumbai-400057                                          …..  Complainant (s) Versus   United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office – Malad 201, Jainson Plaza, 2nd Floor S.V. Road, Malad (West) Mumbai-400064                                          …… Opp. Party (ies)   BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING … Continue reading

Unfortunately, on 25th July 2003, around 4.0 A.M., there was a strong storm and heavy rain-fall due to which the roof of Rice Mill collapsed and the water entered into the Rice Mill due to which the raw material, furnished stock, machinery, tin shed and other articles got damagedwhether the complainant/petitioner after accepting the amount in the sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- as full and final settlement is entitled to have the residue amount claimed in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the initial stage? It is note-worthy that the petitioner has not set up the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion in his pleadings. In the case of “United India Insurance versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) the apex court was pleased to hold: -, “4. ………………… The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise or undue influence or by mis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. 5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the lie. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commision was justified in dismissing their complaints…………………………” 10. This view was also followed in a case reported in the case of “Raj Kumar versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2011) CPJ 354 (NC)]” 11. It is also difficult to fathom as to why the first letter was written 10-11 months, thereafter, this objection was never taken at the earliest possible opportunity. 12. The learned State Commission rightly held that the original complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. The same was filed on 20th January 2007 i.e. two years 11 months and 10 days after cheque of Rs. 3,27,230/- had been issued and accepted by the complainant. The petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3689 OF 2009  (From the order dated 24.07.2009 in Appeal No. 2065/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh) M/s Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan                          …  Petitioner Through its Secretary Shivanant Agrahari Basaipur Distric Chandauli U.P.   Versus   1.  United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                             …  Respondents Thorugh … Continue reading

The matter arises out of theft of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle on 21.3.2009. At the time of the theft the vehicle was insured with the revision petitioner IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Co, on the ground that on the day of the theft the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities. This amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the Insurance Co. 2. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Insurance Co. had insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.5,62,400/-, after charging a premium of Rs.20242.77. The insurance was effective from the date of purchase and was in operation when the vehicle was stolen on 21.3.2009.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                                             REVISION PETITION NO. 171 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 30.8.2011 in Appeal No.174 of 2011 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh) IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. FAI Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110067 And also at Lal Ganga Shopping … Continue reading

Brand New car damaged while in transit, liable to pay entire car value but not for repairs only . In the event of loss of or damage to any part or parts of an insured machine caused by a peril covered by the policy the sum recoverable shall not exceed the cost of replacement or repair of such part or parts plus charges for forwarding and refitting, if incurred, but excluding duty unless the full duty is included in the amount insured, in which case loss, if any, sustained by payment of additional duty shall also be recoverable. Provided always that in no case shall the liability of underwriters exceed the insured value of the complete machine. “ We do not find any substance in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to explain as to what is “Institute Replacement Clause”. Moreover, in the present case, there was damage not to the part or parts of the insured vehicle but it was a case of total loss to the vehicle in the accident. The vehicle in question was a new vehicle and it was not registered with the Regional Transport Office. The said car was to be delivered to the Corporation Bank and if the Bank was to know that the car had suffered damage it would not come forward to purchase the same. Under these circumstances, Respondent No.1 was entitled for compensation to the extent of entire value of the car. Plea taken by the Petitioner that it was liable to indemnify the expenses incurred for repair of the vehicle only, cannot be accepted. We do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs which we assess at Rs.5,000/-.

  NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION No. 4100 of  2007 (From the Order dated 20.09.2007 in Appeal No. 2752/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karanataka)     Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Corporate Claims Dept., Sundaram Towers, No.45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014                                            .. Petitioner   VERSUS   1.     M/s. Shripant Motors, New Sambra Road, Gandhi Nagar, Belgaum, … Continue reading

whether the appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited (insurer) is absolved of its obligations to the third party under the policy of insurance because the cheque 1Page 2 given by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium got dishonoured and subsequent to the accident, the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance.- the owner of the bus obtained policy of insurance from the insurer for the period April 16, 2004 to April 15, 2005 for which premium was paid through cheque on April 14, 2004. The accident occurred on May 11, 2004. It was only thereafter that the insurer cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated May 13, 2004 on the ground of dishonour of cheque which was received by the owner of the vehicle on May 21, 2004. The cancellation of policy having been done by the insurer after the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy award of compensation passed in favour of the claimants. 21. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court impugned in the appeal does not call for any interference. Civil appeal is dismissed. However, the insurer shall be at liberty to prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured. No order as to costs.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3589 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23511 of 2009) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant Versus Laxmamma & Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. Leave granted. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal by … Continue reading

National consumer disputes redressal coammission =contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and as such the question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage arise.fire accident claim of damage.

  NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI                                                   REVISION PETITION NO. 4506 OF  2010 (From the order dated 09.09.2010 in Appeal No.239/08 of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi)     Ashish Vishwakarma of M/s. Ashish Constructions Ranchi Patna Road P.O. Barhi District Hazaribagh                                       …      Petitioner         Vs   1. Branch Manager     National Insurance Co. Ltd.     Ranchi-Patna Road     Post & District Hazaribagh   2. Branch Manager … Continue reading

workmen compensation =Whether the vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident i.e. on 3rd April, 1998 is a question of fact. After appreciating the evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was not insured on 3rd April, 1998 and the vehicle in question had been insured for a period commencing from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998. The High Court has recorded sound reasons for coming to the said conclusion after carefully appreciating the evidence adduced before the Commissioner. Postage book of the Insurance Company shows that the insurance policy was dispatched on 25th March, 1997. This clearly denotes that the policy was taken prior to 25th March, 1997 and, therefore, the High Court rightly believed the version of the Insurance Company. This fact rules out the possibility of the vehicle being insured on 3rd April, 1998 as submitted on behalf of the respondent workmen and the appellant. Moreover, the cover note relied upon by the respondent workmen was not found to be genuine by the High Court. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. 14. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, no legal issue is involved in these appeals and there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court, which appear to be just and proper.

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7170-74 OF 2005 S.M. SHARMILA …..APPELLANT. VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS. J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. As issues involved in all these appeals are common, all the appeals are heard together … Continue reading

when the parties are capable to handle their compensation amount and when they are in dire need of the compensation amount, entire amount should be released with out insisting for fixed deposites==It was pointed out that if the money was locked up in a nationalised bank, only the bank would be benefited by the deposit as they give a paltry interest which could not be equated to the costs of materials which were ever increasing. It was further stated that the delay in payment of compensation amount exposed the appellants to serious prejudice and economic ruin.=The prayer in the application of the appellants for release of the 8 amount invested in long term deposits stands allowed. The entire amount of compensation shall be withdrawn and paid to the appellants without any further delay.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 22521 of 2008]   A.V. Padma & Ors. … Appellants Versus   R. Venugopal & Ors. … Respondents     J U D G M E N T   CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.   … Continue reading

how to fix compensation when a leg of driver was amputated = The decision reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (cited supra) has been relied upon both by the insurer as well as the claimant. In the said decision, the Apex Court has laid down that the ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps and the same has been laid down in paragraph 10, which reads as follows :

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 04/1/2012 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.MOHAN RAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice G.M.AKBAR ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL(NPD)Nos.2597 and 2630 of 2011 and all connected pending MPs AND MP.NO.5 OF 2011 United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rattan Bazaar, Chennai-3. Appellant in CMA No.2597/2011 and R2 in CMA.No.2630 … Continue reading

Insurance – Insurance company agreed to insure timber – Timber washed away due to flood – Insurance company repudiated claim in 1988 -Complaint filed in 1994 – Dismissed by National Consumer Commission as time barred – On facts, held: On date of flood, there was no insurance policy in existence nor any commitment on behalf of insurance company to make payment – Even accepting the case at its very best that the period of limitation was 3 years under s.44 of the Limitation Act, the complaint was, even then, beyond time – No case made out for interference by Supreme Court – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.44. Contract Act, 1872 – s.28 – Contract of insurance – Clause providing for forfeiture or waiver of the right itself if no action was commenced within period stipulated – Held: Not violative of s.28 – Though curtailment of period of limitation is not permissible in view of s.28 but extinction of the right itself unless exercised within a specified time is permissible and can be enforced. Respondent insurance company agreed to insure timber lying in forest areas of the State and issued cover note followed by an insurance policy to be purportedly valid for one year from 6th November, 1987 onwards. The timber was washed away some time in September, 1988 on account of heavy rains and consequent large scale flooding in the State. When appellant laid claim before the respondent, the latter vide its communication dated 13th October 1988 refuted its liability and repudiated the claim contending that the insurance policy was issued for 8 months only starting from 6th November, 1987 and ending on 5th July, 1988 and the period of one year mentioned in the policy was on account of a typographical mistake. It is alleged that Respondent even accepted additional premium after the policy was repudiated and still declined to make good the loss. Appellant filed complaint before National Consumer Commission. The Complaint was dismissed as time barred having been filed after expiry of the 12 months period stipulated by Clause 6(ii) of the insurance policy. The order passed by the National Consumer Commission was challenged in the present appeal on grounds that Clause 6(ii) of the insurance policy could not be sustained being violative of s.28 of the Contract Act, 1872 and in any event s.44 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provided a limitation period of 3 years from the date of disclaimer. =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. It is clear from the record that the timber had been washed away some time in September, 1988 and after prolonged correspondence, the respondent ultimately vide its communication dated 13th October, 1988 repudiated the appellant’s claim. It is also clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the appellant had, vide its letter dated 7th November 1987, asked for insurance cover for a period of 8 months and that the period of one year fixed in the insurance policy was evidently a typographical mistake which had, in any case, been rectified in the records of the company on 17th December 1987, that is long before the flood. The claim of the appellant that the respondent company had, even after the 13th October 1988, impliedly admitted its liability under the policy also appears to be incorrect as the surveyors had been appointed on the persistent demand of the claimant/appellant and the premium taken thereafter was only to make good the deficiency in the premium that had been paid for the policy for the period of eight months. It is, therefore, apparent that as on the date of the flood, there was no insurance policy in existence or any commitment on behalf of the respondent to make the payment under the policy. Therefore, even accepting the case of the appellant at its very best that the period of limitation would be 3 years under Section 44 of the Limitation Act, the complaint would, even then, be beyond time, having been filed in April 1994. [Para 5] [1018-G-H; 1019-A-D] 2. As regards the issue of clause 6 (ii) of the insurance policy vis-a-vis s.28 of the Contract Act, 1872, the National Commission had relied upon the Sujir Nayak’s case to hold that the complaint could not be entertained as being time barred. In Sujir Nayak’s case, while dealing with an identical situation where a contract contained a provision prescribing a period of limitation shorter than that prescribed by the Limitation Act, it was held that the contractual provision was not hit by s.28 as the right itself had been extinguished. The plea of the appellant that in view of the Food Corporation of India’s case, the Sujir Nayak’s case was liable for reconsideration has no merit since in Sujir Nayak’s case, Food Corporation of India’s case was specifically considered. [Paras 6, 8 and 9] [1019-D; 1021-B-D] National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. & Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 366; Food Corporation of India vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 324; Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 943 and Muni Lal vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (1966) 1 SCC 90, referred to. Case Law Reference: (1997) 4 SCC 366 referred to Para 3 (1994) 3 SCC 324 referred to Para 3 (1976) 1 SCC 943 referred to Para 3 (1966) 1 SCC 90 referred to Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2000. From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2000 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 95 of 1994. Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant. K.L. Nandwani and Debasis Misra for the Respondent. =, , , 2009(1 )SCALE216 , 2008(13 )JT66

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6347 OF 2000 H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. ……..Appellant Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …….Respondent JUDGMENT HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. 1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: 2. In October 1987, a meeting was convened by the Managing … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits



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

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com