The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others

Decided On : May-12-2014

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.S. Chaudhari',
			(int) 1 => 'Shimla',
			(int) 2 => 'Yog Raj',
			(int) 3 => 'OP Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'OP No.1',
			(int) 5 => 'OP No.1',
			(int) 6 => 'OP No.1,OP',
			(int) 7 => 'Shah',
			(int) 8 => 'Anr',
			(int) 9 => 'Anr',
			(int) 10 => 'Yog Raj',
			(int) 11 => 'Yog Raj Chauhan',
			(int) 12 => 'Anr',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Thakur Dass'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '28 days',
			(int) 1 => '14.05.2012',
			(int) 2 => '13.7.2007',
			(int) 3 => '24.10.2006',
			(int) 4 => '151959219',
			(int) 5 => '24.10.2006',
			(int) 6 => '1 later',
			(int) 7 => '1997',
			(int) 8 => '14.05.2012',
			(int) 9 => '18.3.2008'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Himachal Pradesh State',
			(int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission',
			(int) 2 => 'the State Commission',
			(int) 3 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
			(int) 4 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 5 => 'LIC',
			(int) 6 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
			(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 8 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 9 => 'LIC',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned District Forum',
			(int) 11 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 12 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 13 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 14 => 'Counsel for the Respondent Nos',
			(int) 15 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 16 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 17 => 'L.I.C.',
			(int) 18 => 'LIC',
			(int) 19 => 'LIC',
			(int) 20 => 'LIC',
			(int) 21 => 'LIC',
			(int) 22 => 'LIC',
			(int) 23 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 24 => 'LIC',
			(int) 25 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 26 => 'the State Commission',
			(int) 27 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
			(int) 28 => 'District Forum'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '130',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => 'Rs.50,000/-',
			(int) 8 => 'two',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '2',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '151959219',
			(int) 14 => '1',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '1',
			(int) 17 => '2',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '2',
			(int) 20 => '1',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '2',
			(int) 23 => '1',
			(int) 24 => '3.',
			(int) 25 => '3',
			(int) 26 => '4.',
			(int) 27 => '5',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => 'No.2',
			(int) 30 => '1and2',
			(int) 31 => '1',
			(int) 32 => '2',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '2',
			(int) 36 => '1',
			(int) 37 => '2',
			(int) 38 => '5',
			(int) 39 => '64',
			(int) 40 => '3',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '1',
			(int) 43 => '1',
			(int) 44 => '2',
			(int) 45 => '1',
			(int) 46 => '8',
			(int) 47 => '3',
			(int) 48 => '9',
			(int) 49 => '130',
			(int) 50 => '2'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'OP No.2/Petitioner',
			(int) 1 => 'OP No.2'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Market Plus Scheme of LIC',
			(int) 1 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
			(int) 2 => 'Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9%'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1145275',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 3447 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-12',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER &amp; THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 28 days is condoned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1/Respondent No. 3 was agent of OP No.2/Petitioner. OP No. 1 visited Complainant No. 1 and apprised terms and conditions of investment in LIC. On15.6.2006, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Future Plus Scheme and again on 13.7.2007, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Market Plus Scheme of LIC. OP invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of his two daughters and obtained two policies. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 handed over premium receipt dated 24.10.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant to LIC for Policy No. 151959219 and this amount was stated to have been invested in Market Plus Scheme. OP No. 2/Petitioner did not issue policy of Market Plus Scheme and later on informed Complainant No. 2 that cheque for aforesaid Policy No. 151959219 stood dishonoured; so, receipt dated 24.10.2006 may be treated as cancelled. OP no. 1 misappropriated and converted funds to his own use. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 later on refunded amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as OP No. 2 was bound by the act of its agent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear before District Forum. OP No. 2 resisted complaint, but admitted status of OP No. 1 as agent of LIC. OP No. 2 expressed ignorance of the entrustment of Rs.6,00,000/- by complainant to OP No. 1 and further submitted that cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and separately with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed complaint and directed to recover Rs.1,00,000/- from OP No. 1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. None appeared for the Respondent no. 3 even after publication of notice in newspaper.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that; though, OP No.1 was agent of OP No. 2; even then, OP No.1 was not authorized to collect premium on behalf of OP No.2 and if there was any misappropriation of amount by OP No.1,OP No.2 was not responsible; even then, State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1and2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. It is not disputed that OP No. 1 was agent of OP No. 2. As per allegation in the complaint, complainant entrusted some money to OP No. 1 for obtaining insurance policies for the complainant and cheque issued towards premium of policy was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As per allegation in the complaint, Rs.3,00,000/- were returned by the OP No.1 to complainant, but some money was not refunded by OP No. 1 to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Now, the core question to be decided is whether OP No. 2 was liable for the acts and misappropriation of funds by OP No. 1 acting as agent of OP No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (1997) 5 SCC 64 &ldquo; <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. Vs. <strong><u>L.I.C. of India and Ors</u></strong>. in which after referring clause 3 and 4 of the regulations framed by LIC, it was held that until and unless complainant proves that LIC by its conduct had induced complainant to believe that OP No. 1 acting as agent was authorised to receive the premium on behalf of LIC, LIC cannot be held responsible for the amount of premium received by agent. In the case in hand, nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that LIC by its conduct induced complainants to believe that OP No. 1 was authorised to receive premium on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, petitioner could not have been held liable for refund of so called premium amount received by OP No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in good faith, this amount was entrusted to Respondent No. 3 for depositing with the LIC against the policies to be obtained. In the light of <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. (Supra) judgment, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for refund of amount received by his agent as premium for obtaining policies for complainants and learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner upto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 18.3.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &ldquo; Yog Raj Chauhan and Anr. Vs. Shri Thakur Dass and Ors. is partly modified and Petitioner/OP No. 2 is exonerated from making any payment to the complainant with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1145275'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.S. Chaudhari',
		(int) 1 => 'Shimla',
		(int) 2 => 'Yog Raj',
		(int) 3 => 'OP Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'OP No.1',
		(int) 5 => 'OP No.1',
		(int) 6 => 'OP No.1,OP',
		(int) 7 => 'Shah',
		(int) 8 => 'Anr',
		(int) 9 => 'Anr',
		(int) 10 => 'Yog Raj',
		(int) 11 => 'Yog Raj Chauhan',
		(int) 12 => 'Anr',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Thakur Dass'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '28 days',
		(int) 1 => '14.05.2012',
		(int) 2 => '13.7.2007',
		(int) 3 => '24.10.2006',
		(int) 4 => '151959219',
		(int) 5 => '24.10.2006',
		(int) 6 => '1 later',
		(int) 7 => '1997',
		(int) 8 => '14.05.2012',
		(int) 9 => '18.3.2008'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Himachal Pradesh State',
		(int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission',
		(int) 2 => 'the State Commission',
		(int) 3 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
		(int) 4 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 5 => 'LIC',
		(int) 6 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
		(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 8 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 9 => 'LIC',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned District Forum',
		(int) 11 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 12 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 13 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 14 => 'Counsel for the Respondent Nos',
		(int) 15 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 16 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 17 => 'L.I.C.',
		(int) 18 => 'LIC',
		(int) 19 => 'LIC',
		(int) 20 => 'LIC',
		(int) 21 => 'LIC',
		(int) 22 => 'LIC',
		(int) 23 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 24 => 'LIC',
		(int) 25 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 26 => 'the State Commission',
		(int) 27 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
		(int) 28 => 'District Forum'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '130',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => 'Rs.50,000/-',
		(int) 8 => 'two',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '2',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '151959219',
		(int) 14 => '1',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '1',
		(int) 17 => '2',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '2',
		(int) 20 => '1',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '2',
		(int) 23 => '1',
		(int) 24 => '3.',
		(int) 25 => '3',
		(int) 26 => '4.',
		(int) 27 => '5',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => 'No.2',
		(int) 30 => '1and2',
		(int) 31 => '1',
		(int) 32 => '2',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '2',
		(int) 36 => '1',
		(int) 37 => '2',
		(int) 38 => '5',
		(int) 39 => '64',
		(int) 40 => '3',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '1',
		(int) 43 => '1',
		(int) 44 => '2',
		(int) 45 => '1',
		(int) 46 => '8',
		(int) 47 => '3',
		(int) 48 => '9',
		(int) 49 => '130',
		(int) 50 => '2'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'OP No.2/Petitioner',
		(int) 1 => 'OP No.2'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Market Plus Scheme of LIC',
		(int) 1 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
		(int) 2 => 'Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9%'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1145275',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 3447 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-12',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER &amp; THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 28 days is condoned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1/Respondent No. 3 was agent of OP No.2/Petitioner. OP No. 1 visited Complainant No. 1 and apprised terms and conditions of investment in LIC. On15.6.2006, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Future Plus Scheme and again on 13.7.2007, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Market Plus Scheme of LIC. OP invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of his two daughters and obtained two policies. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 handed over premium receipt dated 24.10.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant to LIC for Policy No. 151959219 and this amount was stated to have been invested in Market Plus Scheme. OP No. 2/Petitioner did not issue policy of Market Plus Scheme and later on informed Complainant No. 2 that cheque for aforesaid Policy No. 151959219 stood dishonoured; so, receipt dated 24.10.2006 may be treated as cancelled. OP no. 1 misappropriated and converted funds to his own use. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 later on refunded amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as OP No. 2 was bound by the act of its agent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear before District Forum. OP No. 2 resisted complaint, but admitted status of OP No. 1 as agent of LIC. OP No. 2 expressed ignorance of the entrustment of Rs.6,00,000/- by complainant to OP No. 1 and further submitted that cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and separately with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed complaint and directed to recover Rs.1,00,000/- from OP No. 1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. None appeared for the Respondent no. 3 even after publication of notice in newspaper.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that; though, OP No.1 was agent of OP No. 2; even then, OP No.1 was not authorized to collect premium on behalf of OP No.2 and if there was any misappropriation of amount by OP No.1,OP No.2 was not responsible; even then, State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1and2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. It is not disputed that OP No. 1 was agent of OP No. 2. As per allegation in the complaint, complainant entrusted some money to OP No. 1 for obtaining insurance policies for the complainant and cheque issued towards premium of policy was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As per allegation in the complaint, Rs.3,00,000/- were returned by the OP No.1 to complainant, but some money was not refunded by OP No. 1 to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Now, the core question to be decided is whether OP No. 2 was liable for the acts and misappropriation of funds by OP No. 1 acting as agent of OP No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (1997) 5 SCC 64 &ldquo; <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. Vs. <strong><u>L.I.C. of India and Ors</u></strong>. in which after referring clause 3 and 4 of the regulations framed by LIC, it was held that until and unless complainant proves that LIC by its conduct had induced complainant to believe that OP No. 1 acting as agent was authorised to receive the premium on behalf of LIC, LIC cannot be held responsible for the amount of premium received by agent. In the case in hand, nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that LIC by its conduct induced complainants to believe that OP No. 1 was authorised to receive premium on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, petitioner could not have been held liable for refund of so called premium amount received by OP No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in good faith, this amount was entrusted to Respondent No. 3 for depositing with the LIC against the policies to be obtained. In the light of <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. (Supra) judgment, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for refund of amount received by his agent as premium for obtaining policies for complainants and learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner upto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 18.3.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &ldquo; Yog Raj Chauhan and Anr. Vs. Shri Thakur Dass and Ors. is partly modified and Petitioner/OP No. 2 is exonerated from making any payment to the complainant with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1145275'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.S. Chaudhari',
			(int) 1 => 'Shimla',
			(int) 2 => 'Yog Raj',
			(int) 3 => 'OP Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'OP No.1',
			(int) 5 => 'OP No.1',
			(int) 6 => 'OP No.1,OP',
			(int) 7 => 'Shah',
			(int) 8 => 'Anr',
			(int) 9 => 'Anr',
			(int) 10 => 'Yog Raj',
			(int) 11 => 'Yog Raj Chauhan',
			(int) 12 => 'Anr',
			(int) 13 => 'Shri Thakur Dass'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '28 days',
			(int) 1 => '14.05.2012',
			(int) 2 => '13.7.2007',
			(int) 3 => '24.10.2006',
			(int) 4 => '151959219',
			(int) 5 => '24.10.2006',
			(int) 6 => '1 later',
			(int) 7 => '1997',
			(int) 8 => '14.05.2012',
			(int) 9 => '18.3.2008'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Himachal Pradesh State',
			(int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission',
			(int) 2 => 'the State Commission',
			(int) 3 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
			(int) 4 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 5 => 'LIC',
			(int) 6 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
			(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 8 => 'District Forum',
			(int) 9 => 'LIC',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned District Forum',
			(int) 11 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 12 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 13 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 14 => 'Counsel for the Respondent Nos',
			(int) 15 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 16 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 17 => 'L.I.C.',
			(int) 18 => 'LIC',
			(int) 19 => 'LIC',
			(int) 20 => 'LIC',
			(int) 21 => 'LIC',
			(int) 22 => 'LIC',
			(int) 23 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 24 => 'LIC',
			(int) 25 => 'State Commission',
			(int) 26 => 'the State Commission',
			(int) 27 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
			(int) 28 => 'District Forum'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '130',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '1',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => 'Rs.50,000/-',
			(int) 8 => 'two',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '2',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '151959219',
			(int) 14 => '1',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '1',
			(int) 17 => '2',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '2',
			(int) 20 => '1',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '2',
			(int) 23 => '1',
			(int) 24 => '3.',
			(int) 25 => '3',
			(int) 26 => '4.',
			(int) 27 => '5',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => 'No.2',
			(int) 30 => '1and2',
			(int) 31 => '1',
			(int) 32 => '2',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => '2',
			(int) 36 => '1',
			(int) 37 => '2',
			(int) 38 => '5',
			(int) 39 => '64',
			(int) 40 => '3',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '1',
			(int) 43 => '1',
			(int) 44 => '2',
			(int) 45 => '1',
			(int) 46 => '8',
			(int) 47 => '3',
			(int) 48 => '9',
			(int) 49 => '130',
			(int) 50 => '2'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'OP No.2/Petitioner',
			(int) 1 => 'OP No.2'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Market Plus Scheme of LIC',
			(int) 1 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
			(int) 2 => 'Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
			(int) 4 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '9%'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1145275',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 3447 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC',
			'court_type' => 'TRI',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-12',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER &amp; THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 28 days is condoned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1/Respondent No. 3 was agent of OP No.2/Petitioner. OP No. 1 visited Complainant No. 1 and apprised terms and conditions of investment in LIC. On15.6.2006, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Future Plus Scheme and again on 13.7.2007, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Market Plus Scheme of LIC. OP invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of his two daughters and obtained two policies. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 handed over premium receipt dated 24.10.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant to LIC for Policy No. 151959219 and this amount was stated to have been invested in Market Plus Scheme. OP No. 2/Petitioner did not issue policy of Market Plus Scheme and later on informed Complainant No. 2 that cheque for aforesaid Policy No. 151959219 stood dishonoured; so, receipt dated 24.10.2006 may be treated as cancelled. OP no. 1 misappropriated and converted funds to his own use. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 later on refunded amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as OP No. 2 was bound by the act of its agent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear before District Forum. OP No. 2 resisted complaint, but admitted status of OP No. 1 as agent of LIC. OP No. 2 expressed ignorance of the entrustment of Rs.6,00,000/- by complainant to OP No. 1 and further submitted that cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and separately with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed complaint and directed to recover Rs.1,00,000/- from OP No. 1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. None appeared for the Respondent no. 3 even after publication of notice in newspaper.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that; though, OP No.1 was agent of OP No. 2; even then, OP No.1 was not authorized to collect premium on behalf of OP No.2 and if there was any misappropriation of amount by OP No.1,OP No.2 was not responsible; even then, State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1and2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. It is not disputed that OP No. 1 was agent of OP No. 2. As per allegation in the complaint, complainant entrusted some money to OP No. 1 for obtaining insurance policies for the complainant and cheque issued towards premium of policy was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As per allegation in the complaint, Rs.3,00,000/- were returned by the OP No.1 to complainant, but some money was not refunded by OP No. 1 to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Now, the core question to be decided is whether OP No. 2 was liable for the acts and misappropriation of funds by OP No. 1 acting as agent of OP No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (1997) 5 SCC 64 &ldquo; <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. Vs. <strong><u>L.I.C. of India and Ors</u></strong>. in which after referring clause 3 and 4 of the regulations framed by LIC, it was held that until and unless complainant proves that LIC by its conduct had induced complainant to believe that OP No. 1 acting as agent was authorised to receive the premium on behalf of LIC, LIC cannot be held responsible for the amount of premium received by agent. In the case in hand, nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that LIC by its conduct induced complainants to believe that OP No. 1 was authorised to receive premium on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, petitioner could not have been held liable for refund of so called premium amount received by OP No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in good faith, this amount was entrusted to Respondent No. 3 for depositing with the LIC against the policies to be obtained. In the light of <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. (Supra) judgment, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for refund of amount received by his agent as premium for obtaining policies for complainants and learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner upto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 18.3.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &ldquo; Yog Raj Chauhan and Anr. Vs. Shri Thakur Dass and Ors. is partly modified and Petitioner/OP No. 2 is exonerated from making any payment to the complainant with no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1145275'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.S. Chaudhari',
		(int) 1 => 'Shimla',
		(int) 2 => 'Yog Raj',
		(int) 3 => 'OP Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'OP No.1',
		(int) 5 => 'OP No.1',
		(int) 6 => 'OP No.1,OP',
		(int) 7 => 'Shah',
		(int) 8 => 'Anr',
		(int) 9 => 'Anr',
		(int) 10 => 'Yog Raj',
		(int) 11 => 'Yog Raj Chauhan',
		(int) 12 => 'Anr',
		(int) 13 => 'Shri Thakur Dass'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '28 days',
		(int) 1 => '14.05.2012',
		(int) 2 => '13.7.2007',
		(int) 3 => '24.10.2006',
		(int) 4 => '151959219',
		(int) 5 => '24.10.2006',
		(int) 6 => '1 later',
		(int) 7 => '1997',
		(int) 8 => '14.05.2012',
		(int) 9 => '18.3.2008'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Himachal Pradesh State',
		(int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission',
		(int) 2 => 'the State Commission',
		(int) 3 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
		(int) 4 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 5 => 'LIC',
		(int) 6 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
		(int) 7 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 8 => 'District Forum',
		(int) 9 => 'LIC',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned District Forum',
		(int) 11 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 12 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 13 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 14 => 'Counsel for the Respondent Nos',
		(int) 15 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 16 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 17 => 'L.I.C.',
		(int) 18 => 'LIC',
		(int) 19 => 'LIC',
		(int) 20 => 'LIC',
		(int) 21 => 'LIC',
		(int) 22 => 'LIC',
		(int) 23 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 24 => 'LIC',
		(int) 25 => 'State Commission',
		(int) 26 => 'the State Commission',
		(int) 27 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs',
		(int) 28 => 'District Forum'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '130',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '1',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => 'Rs.50,000/-',
		(int) 8 => 'two',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '2',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '151959219',
		(int) 14 => '1',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '1',
		(int) 17 => '2',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '2',
		(int) 20 => '1',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '2',
		(int) 23 => '1',
		(int) 24 => '3.',
		(int) 25 => '3',
		(int) 26 => '4.',
		(int) 27 => '5',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => 'No.2',
		(int) 30 => '1and2',
		(int) 31 => '1',
		(int) 32 => '2',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => '2',
		(int) 36 => '1',
		(int) 37 => '2',
		(int) 38 => '5',
		(int) 39 => '64',
		(int) 40 => '3',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '1',
		(int) 43 => '1',
		(int) 44 => '2',
		(int) 45 => '1',
		(int) 46 => '8',
		(int) 47 => '3',
		(int) 48 => '9',
		(int) 49 => '130',
		(int) 50 => '2'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'OP No.2/Petitioner',
		(int) 1 => 'OP No.2'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Market Plus Scheme of LIC',
		(int) 1 => 'Market Plus Scheme',
		(int) 2 => 'Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 3 => 'p.a.',
		(int) 4 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'Rs.1,00,000/-'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '9%'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1145275',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 3447 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC',
		'court_type' => 'TRI',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-12',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER &amp; THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 28 days is condoned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1/Respondent No. 3 was agent of OP No.2/Petitioner. OP No. 1 visited Complainant No. 1 and apprised terms and conditions of investment in LIC. On15.6.2006, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Future Plus Scheme and again on 13.7.2007, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Market Plus Scheme of LIC. OP invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of his two daughters and obtained two policies. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 handed over premium receipt dated 24.10.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant to LIC for Policy No. 151959219 and this amount was stated to have been invested in Market Plus Scheme. OP No. 2/Petitioner did not issue policy of Market Plus Scheme and later on informed Complainant No. 2 that cheque for aforesaid Policy No. 151959219 stood dishonoured; so, receipt dated 24.10.2006 may be treated as cancelled. OP no. 1 misappropriated and converted funds to his own use. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 later on refunded amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as OP No. 2 was bound by the act of its agent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear before District Forum. OP No. 2 resisted complaint, but admitted status of OP No. 1 as agent of LIC. OP No. 2 expressed ignorance of the entrustment of Rs.6,00,000/- by complainant to OP No. 1 and further submitted that cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and separately with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed complaint and directed to recover Rs.1,00,000/- from OP No. 1 with cost of Rs.2,000/- Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. None appeared for the Respondent no. 3 even after publication of notice in newspaper.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that; though, OP No.1 was agent of OP No. 2; even then, OP No.1 was not authorized to collect premium on behalf of OP No.2 and if there was any misappropriation of amount by OP No.1,OP No.2 was not responsible; even then, State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1and2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. It is not disputed that OP No. 1 was agent of OP No. 2. As per allegation in the complaint, complainant entrusted some money to OP No. 1 for obtaining insurance policies for the complainant and cheque issued towards premium of policy was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As per allegation in the complaint, Rs.3,00,000/- were returned by the OP No.1 to complainant, but some money was not refunded by OP No. 1 to the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Now, the core question to be decided is whether OP No. 2 was liable for the acts and misappropriation of funds by OP No. 1 acting as agent of OP No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (1997) 5 SCC 64 &ldquo; <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. Vs. <strong><u>L.I.C. of India and Ors</u></strong>. in which after referring clause 3 and 4 of the regulations framed by LIC, it was held that until and unless complainant proves that LIC by its conduct had induced complainant to believe that OP No. 1 acting as agent was authorised to receive the premium on behalf of LIC, LIC cannot be held responsible for the amount of premium received by agent. In the case in hand, nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that LIC by its conduct induced complainants to believe that OP No. 1 was authorised to receive premium on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, petitioner could not have been held liable for refund of so called premium amount received by OP No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in good faith, this amount was entrusted to Respondent No. 3 for depositing with the LIC against the policies to be obtained. In the light of <strong><u>Harshad</u></strong><strong><u>J. Shah and Anr</u></strong>. (Supra) judgment, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for refund of amount received by his agent as premium for obtaining policies for complainants and learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner upto the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 &ldquo; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 18.3.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &ldquo; Yog Raj Chauhan and Anr. Vs. Shri Thakur Dass and Ors. is partly modified and Petitioner/OP No. 2 is exonerated from making any payment to the complainant with no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Yog Raj Chauhan and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1145275'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

PERSON: K.S. Chaudhari, Shimla, Yog Raj, OP Nos, OP No.1, OP No.1, OP No.1,OP, Shah, Anr, Anr, Yog Raj, Yog Raj Chauhan, Anr, Shri Thakur Dass

DATE: 28 days, 14.05.2012, 13.7.2007, 24.10.2006, 151959219, 24.10.2006, 1 later, 1997, 14.05.2012, 18.3.2008

ORG: the Himachal Pradesh State, Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Commission, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs, District Forum, LIC, Market Plus Scheme, District Forum, District Forum, LIC, Learned District Forum, State Commission, Learned Counsel, State Commission, Counsel for the Respondent Nos, State Commission, Learned Counsel, L.I.C., LIC, LIC, LIC, LIC, LIC, Learned Counsel, LIC, State Commission, the State Commission, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs, District Forum

CARDINAL: 130, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, Rs.50,000/-, two, two, 1, 2, 2, 151959219, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3., 3, 4., 5, 2, No.2, 1and2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5, 64, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 8, 3, 9, 130, 2

PRODUCT: OP No.2/Petitioner, OP No.2

WORK_OF_ART: Market Plus Scheme of LIC, Market Plus Scheme, Complaint Case No. 2/2008 &

GPE: Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, p.a., Rs.1,00,000/-, India, Rs.1,00,000/-

PERCENT: 9%