Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Decided On : Jul-31-2023

Court : Supreme Court of India

LAW: Section 379, Section 24A, the Consumer Protection Act, Condition No.1, Condition No.1, Condition No.5, the Code of Civil Procedure1(CPC, Condition No.5, Condition No.5, Condition No.1, Condition No.1, Condition 1, Condition 1, Condition 1, Condition 1, Condition No.5, Condition No.5, Condition No.5, Condition No.1, Condition No.5

DATE: 2023, 24.01.2018, Rs.8,40,000/-, the period 20.02.2008 to 19.02.2009, 27.06.2008, 11.06.2009, 2009, 2009, 11.06.2009, 15.10.2009, 2009, 22.11.2020, 2009, 22.11.2010, 15.10.2009, 2012, 2009, 2009, 02.07.2008 i.e., six days, six days, September 20th, 2011, six days, 2008, 2010, 2009, 6 days, 11.06.2009, 15.10.2009, 2009, 22.11.2010, 2009, 2009, 22.11.2010, 2009, 11.06.2009, 6 days, 2020, 2017, 2018, 2020, 618-21, 9-15, 18 17, the next day, about five months, 27.06.2008, 2012, 2018, 1996, 2004, 2016, 1993, April 1988, 1984, 1984, 2018, 3 years, July 31, 2023

ORG: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4758, Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Respondent(s, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the National Commission, the National Commission, Redressal Forum, Disputes Redressal Commission, the State Commission, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Claimant, the Insured Declared Value, Mam Chand, Mittal’s Farm, Mam Chand, Mittal’s Farm, IPC, the District Forum, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, the respondent- 4 Insurance Company, Mam Chand's, un, Co., the District Forum, Adv, RO & AC DCDRF, GGN, the District Forum, Claimant, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, The Insurance Company, the District Forum, The 7 Insurance Company, Appeal, the State Commission, the State Commission, the Insurance Company, Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, the State Commission’s, Company, Company, Company, Fatal Inquiry, Company, Insured, The State Commission, FIR, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, the State Commission, Court, National Insurance Company Limited, Amalendu Sahoo, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Amalendu Sahoo, the State Commission, the Appeal of the Insurance Company, the National Commission, Complaint No.515 of, the National Commission, the National Commission, The National Commission, the Revision Petition, claim.-, Court, Court, the State Commission, the National Commission, the State Commission, the Insurance Company.6), the State Commission, the Appellant-Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, Complaint No.515, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, the National Commission, the National Commission, CC No.515 of, the National Commission, Complaint No.515 of, Complaint No.515, Complaint No.515 of, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, the National Commission, CPC, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, Court, Jaina Construction Company, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Court, Bench, Reliance General Insurance, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., FIR, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., FIR, FIR, inter alia, FIR, Court, FIR, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, FIR, the Insurance Company, FIR, the Insurance Company, the District Forum, the State Commission, Reliance, Nitin Khandelwal, Amalendu Sahoo, Counsel for the Insurance-Company, Amalendu Sahoo, Counsel, Amalendu Sahoo, Court, National Insurance Company Limited, B.V. Nagaraju, Oriental 21 Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, SCC647,, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance General Insurance, IPC, the Insurance Company, Claimant, Mam Chand, Mittal’s Farm, The Court of Appeal, London Country Bus, Exporters) Ltd., Camden London Borough Council, the Court of Appeal, P. Perl, London Borough Council, the District Forum, State, the Insurance Company, 29.03.2022, Court, SLP, M/s, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, Claimant, the State Commission, FIR, the District Forum and State Commission, Nitin 26 Khandelwal, Amalendu Sahoo, Amalendu Sahoo, Court, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Court, The District Forum, the State Commission, Amalendu Sahoo, Amalendu Sahoo, the Insurance Company, Amalendu Sahoo, the District Forum, the State Commission, Appeal, the National Commission, the State Commission

GPE: K.V., Viswanathan, New Delhi, Mam Chand, Opp, Opp, C.C., p.a., Gurshinder Singh, Singh, Lakhmi Chand, Mam Chand, England, Viswanathan, New Delhi

NORP: J.1

CARDINAL: 1, 3, 26.06.2008, 2, two, three, 02.07.2008, 3 4, 4, one, 27.10.2008, 2, 26.06.2008, 5, 5, one, 22.11.2020, 6, 22.11.2010, only two, 5, 8, 1, 5, 5, 26.06.2008, 27.06.2008, 9, 11, 4, 10, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 14, 4, 3, 114, only two, two-fold, 12, 13, 9, 9, 14, 5, 15, 1)(4, 16, 2022, 4, 11, 10, two, 9, three, three, 11, 20, 12, two, 14, 18.-19, 20, 19, 26.06.2008, 02.07.2008, 2 SCC108, 4, 3, 3, 378, 22, 23, 24, 25, 14, some 27, 14, 28

PERSON: Fora, Shankar ki Dhani, Gurgaon, Gurgaon, i.e Rs, Dumper No, Dumper, Dumper, Dumper, Dumper, Kumar Gulia, Sd/- Sd/- Surender, Kumar Gulia, Condition Nos, HLTH/ MISC/, Condition Nos, xxx xxx xxx, Nitin Khandelwal, Complainant, Kunika, J.P. Sheokand, Complainant, Kumar Gulia, Bench, Prakash, Parvesh Chander Chadha, Bench, Manjeet Singh, Hassan, Swaran Singh, Claimant, David Topp, Green, Green, Green, Topp, Robert Goff, Robert Goff, V. Camden, Robert Goff, Kanwarjit Singh Kang, Description Percentage, Nitin Khandelwal, J.(J.K. Maheshwari

PERCENT: 75%, 18%, 18%, 75%, 75%, 75%, 25%, 75%, up to 75%, 75%, the entire 75%

FAC: the Bilaspur Police Station, Nitin Khandelwal, Nitin Khandelwal, Highway

PRODUCT: Appellant, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, No.1, Condition No.1, 359E-F, No.1

WORK_OF_ART: Delta Detectives, Condition Nos, Condition No.1, Condition No.1, 9 SCC724, Condition No.1, Mittal Farm, Condition No.1, Condition No.1

ORDINAL: first, Firstly, secondly, Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly, Fourthly, Fifthly, Sixthly, first, second, 24th

LOC: Order XXIII Rule

QUANTITY: 17 xxx xxx xxx

TIME: about 2.35 p.m., 40 minute, about eight minutes, about 2.43 p.m., that evening, 11.15 at night, 25.03.2010