advocatemmmohan
new india assurance
Whether the ‘business hours’ did not include the lunch break?. an incident of theft, which took place in the shop premises of the Complainant/respondent on 8.5.2003 during the lunch hours. Gold ornaments allegedly worth over Rs.21 lakhs and some cash were stolen. Acting on the FIR lodged in this behalf, the Police recovered ornaments worth Rs.12,47,300/-. Therefore, as observed by the State Commission, there is no dispute about the fact of theft.— “Perused the record and documents tendered by the parties. There is no dispute regarding theft of jewelry occurred during the lunch hours. The Police were able to recover only Rs.12,47,000/-. However, total loss due to theft was valued to Rs.22,93,500/-. The Respondent/ Complainant subscribed to the insurance policy providing insurance cover to the ornaments in the shop. The policy document covers display window of the jewelry [included in the total section 1 Sum Insured] and also provided insurance cover for the jewelry kept elsewhere. Total sum Insured under the policy is Rs.21,51,000/-. The survey report mentioned that AC unit had fallen on the floor and on top of it chair has been kept to entire into the shop with intention to burglary. A big ply had also been placed behind the AC grill and AC grill had been cut opened so as to get access for burglary. The survey report is an important piece of document and cannot be ignored. Therefore, intent of burglary of the jewelry by breaking open the shop is clearly established form the record. Theft of jewelry is undisputed fact.” 3. Yet, the claim of the Complainant for the remaining value of Rs.10,46,500/- was rejected by the OP/revision petitioner.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 14.03.2012 in First Appeal No. A/06/2448 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having office at 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra Having its Regional office at Delhi Regional Office-II, Level-V, … Continue reading
The matter pertains to a car which was stolen on 24.10.2007. The OP/New India Assurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the Complainant had no insurable interest on the date of loss, as he had already sold vehicle to one Shri Dilprit Singh on 24.7.2007
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1227 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 28.11.2011 in First Appeal No.931/2009 of the State Commission, Haryana) Dharambir, S/o Sh. Jhangi Ram R/o H No.89, Ram Nagar, Karnal Haryana ……….Petitioner Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Gagan Building G T Road, Karnal Haryana … Continue reading
quantum of sentence In this case, so far as appellant M.C. Gupta is concerned, he is about 70 years’ old and is stated to be suffering from various ailments. The crime in question took place about 24 years ago. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that his sentence of two years’ RI for offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947 should be reduced to one year’s RI and is accordingly reduced. Rest of the sentences awarded to him shall remain intact. So far as appellant Mohan Lal Gupta is concerned, he has been sentenced to one year’s RI for offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act of 1947. Considering the fact that he was the beneficiary of the dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation of the Company’s money, we are not inclined to reduce his sentence. We clarify that the sentence of fine imposed on both the appellants is confirmed. The appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1332 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3786 of 2012] M.C. GUPTA … Appellant Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5908 of 2012] … Continue reading
Medical Negligence – The facts of this case speak for themselves. The patient was admitted on 5.12.2004. His several Tests were conducted. The petitioner could not show to the Commission that the patient had already got the liver injury before his admission into his hospital. It is not denied that the petitioner inserted pipe on 5.12.2004 and again on 13.12.2004 after removing the old pipe. The condition of patient deteriorated with the insertion of second pipe. As a matter of fact, it was a case of accident and the physician should not have taken a step forward without consulting a surgeon.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1543 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 21.10.2011 in Appeal No. 874/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) Dr. Rajiv Gupta (Incharge) Amrat Dhara Hospital, Chaura Bazar, Karnal Haryana Versus 1. Sukhbir Singh Son of Sh. Tula Ram Village Subhri Post Office … Continue reading
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE = These appeals are directed against the order dated 31.01.2007 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereafter, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 56 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission held the appellants (in F.A. no. 157 of 2007; hereafter, ‘the appellants’) guilty of medical negligence (deficiency in service) in treating the wife of the complainants/respondents 1 and 2 at the time of her delivery (which led to her untimely death) and allo wed their complaint by awarding compensation of Rs.20,26,000/- and costof Rs. 10,000/- to be paid equally by appellants 1 and 2. As Dr. G.S. Kochhar (representing appellant 1) and Appellant 2 were each insured with respondent 4 (the Oriental Insurance Company – OIC) for Rs.10 lakh, the State Commission directed respondent 4 to pay Rs.20 lakh out of the compensation awarded and the appellants 1 and 2 to share the balance amount equally. For convenience, we refer to the parties in accordance with their status in F.A. no. 158 of 2007. 18. As a result, we agree with the conclusion of the State Commission regarding Appellant 2 being guilty of medical negligence / deficiency in service, albeit for substantially different reasons, as discussed above. The relief granted by the State Commission is, however, based on the principles governing compensation in such cases and cannot be faulted. We also notice that as a sequel to this Commission’s direction dated 12.04.2007, complainant 1 had withdrawn Rs.6 lakh deposited by Deep Nursing Home and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respectively in equal share of Rs. 3 lakh each. 19 (i) Consequently, we dismiss both the Appeals (no. 158 of 2007 and no. 193 of 2007) and direct Appellant 2 (Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar) to pay Rs.20.26 lakh to complainant 1, as awarded by the State Commission. However, since complainant 1 has already withdrawn the sum of Rs. 6 lakh, the net payment due will be reduced to Rs. 14.26 lakh. In addition, Appellant 2 shall also pay Rs. 14,000/- to complainant 1 towards the costs of these proceedings. The payment (of Rs. 14.40 lakh) may be made within 6 weeks of the date of this order.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL No. 158 of 2007 (From the Order dated 31.01.2007 in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2006 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) 1. Deep Nursing Home (Through Dr. Gurdeep Singh Kochhar) Kothi No. 3026, Sector 21 D, Chandigarh 2. Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar Appellants … Continue reading
The State Commission vide the order impugned has passed a detailed order accepting the plea of the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company that the story of theft of the vehicle was shrouded with doubt as the petitioner/complainant had failed to lodge a complaint with the police authorities immediately after the theft and has taken more than 2 months 11 days to register an FIR. Similarly, information with regard to the theft was not given to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and the claim was filed belatedly in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The State Commission relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [(2004) 8 SCC 644] and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. [2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP)] has held that the petitioner/complainant had grossly violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in dealing with the matter, in lodging the FIR as well as giving information to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and, therefore, was not entitled to any compensation as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be construed strictly as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3900 OF 2011 [Against the order dated 20.07.2011 in FA No. 1612 & 2049 of 2008 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula] Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Jaswant Singh R/o Village Mandothi Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar … Petitioner Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 323401-122-123 Model Basti, Behind Filmistan Cinema New Delhi-110005 … Respondent Before : … Continue reading
5. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the documents produced on record. It is obvious from its very title that the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy was limited to deaths, permanent disablement, etc., of the covered employees of the HPSEB, arising out of their “personal accident”. In other words, natural death of a daily-wage employee at his home was outside the coverage of the insurance scheme. What the State Commission has done is to read the word “Death” in isolation of the rest of the letter dated 20.02.1996 of the Secretary, HPSEB conveying the details of the scheme. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sharma, the complainant herself has stated that the death of her husband was from natural causes, at this home and thereafter, she had been employed as a daily-wage worker by the Board in one of its offices. In other words, the Board has discharged its duties as a compassionate employer. However, even if it had not done so, the petitioner Board could not, by any reckoning, be held responsible for payment of the insurance amount to the complainant because her husband’s death was due to natural causes. Likewise, the death being “natural”, the insurance company was also not liable to pay the amount insured even if the delay in reporting the death/making the claim were to be overlooked/condoned.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 512 of 2007 (From the order dated 08.11.2006 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Appeal no. 18 of 2006) 1. Executive Engineer, Transmission Division H. P. State Electricity Board, Bilaspur, H.P. 2. Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division H.P. State Electricity Board Shimla – 171 004, … Continue reading
Fixing compensation in Motor accident case =The High Court opined that the deceased would have contributed an amount of Rs.16,000/- per month to the dependents, whereas the Tribunal opined that the deceased would have contributed an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Both the Courts below proceeded to arrive at the abovementioned amounts on the basis
Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17186 of 2009) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Yogesh Devi & Ors. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T Chelameswar, J. Leave granted. 2. One … Continue reading
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 163A, 166, 168 and 169 – Motor accident – Claim for compensation u/s. 163-A – For the death of owner of the vehicle – Maintainability of the petition questioned – Tribunal holding that petition was maintainable – High Court holding the same as not maintainable – On appeal, held: The claims tribunal in a claim petition, is required to decide all the issues in one go and not in piecemeal – The question of maintainability is connected with the liability of the Insurance Company – Therefore, the matter is sent back to claims tribunal to decide all the issues together. Owner of the insured vehicle died in a road accident while he was driving the vehicle. His dependants filed petition u/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. The Insurance Company questioned the maintainability of the petition stating that it was liable to compensation only for third party and not to the owner. The tribunal held that the petition was maintainable. High Court, in revision, held that it was not maintainable. In the instant appeal, appellants contended that additional premium was paid to cover the risk of the driver of the vehicle and in the policy, persons or classes of persons entitled to drive included the insured and thus the insurance company was liable. =Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The whole object of summary procedure required to be followed by the Claims Tribunal, is to ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. The inquiry u/s. 168 and the summary procedure do not contemplate the controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application. [Para 5] 1.2 The objection raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is dependent on determination of the effect of the additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other terms of the policy including terms of the policy. Since all issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of the evidence that may be led in by the parties and not in piecemeal, it is not proper to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. The matter is sent back to the Claims Tribunal. [Para 5] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2164 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2002 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2001. B.K. Satija for the Appellants. Manish Singhvi, P.V. Yogeswaran, Jaswant Perraya for the Respondent.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2164 OF 2004 Bimlesh and Ors. …Appellants Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. The claimants are in appeal by special leave aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 1, 2002 of the High Court for the … Continue reading
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s. 168 – Motor accident – Driver not holding valid driving licence – Tribunal’s direction to Insurance Company to pay compensation to dependants of victim and to recover the amounts from driver and owner of offending vehicle – Executing court directing Insurance Company to file suits for recovery – High Court declining to interfere – HELD: Tribunal must be held to have issued the directions in exercise of its inherent powers, keeping in view the social justice doctrine and in the interest of claimants – Impugned orders are set aside – Executing courts will proceed with the execution expeditiously – Execution of awards made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Social Justice. The claim petitions filed by the dependents of the persons killed in motor accidents were allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. However, as the drivers of the offending vehicles did not hold valid licences at the time of accidents, the Tribunals directed the Insurance Company to pay the amounts to the claimants and recover it from the respondent-drivers and owners of the offending vehicles. In the execution petitions, the executing court directed the Insurance Company to file suits for recovery. The petitions filed by the Insurance Company under Article 227 of the Constitution, having been dismissed by the High Court, it filed the appeals. -Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. One of the conditions which would make the insurance company liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of payment of the amount of compensation in favour of a claimant is that the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid driving licence. In the instant case, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was proved to be invalid. The courts, however, keeping in view the social justice doctrine wherefor the Act was enacted and in the interest of the claimants ,had been passing orders directing Insurance Company to make the payment and recover the same from the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles. The directions by the Tribunal must be held to have been issued in exercise of its inherent power. It would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company, which is directed to pay the amount, has to face immense difficulties in executing a decree. The impugned judgments cannot be sustained, and are set aside. The executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. [Para 7 and 10] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (2006) 3 SCALE 519; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha (2008) 12 SCC 385; and Dedappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 595, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2004) 13 SCC 224 relied on para 6 (2004) 2 SCC 1 relied on para 8 (2006) 3 SCALE 519 relied on para 8 (2008) 12 SCC 385 relied on para 8 (2008) 2 SCC 595 relied on para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5082 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3231 of 2004. WITH C.A. No. 5083 of 2009. Nanita Sharma, Satbir Pillaina, M.K. Bhardwaj, Ashok K. Mahajan, A.K. De, Rajesh Dwivedi, R.C. Kaushik, Madhuri Gupta, Rani Chhabra for the appearing parties.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3372 of 2007) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Kusum & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4176 of 2007) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 