Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... proposal on the ground that the cheque issued is a third party cheque and that the same is in violation of section 64 (v)(b) of the insurance act. the complainant had not received any previous intimation although the proposal and the premium amount were entrusted with the second opposite party on 10-04-2003. the ..... cheque had not been produced. as per section 64(v)(b) clause iv of the insurance act which is provided that where any insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within 24 ..... the first opposite party. the complainant is yet to pay the amount incurred by the second opposite party. it is also pointed out that the insurer had accepted the cheque and acted upon, as the proposal was not rejected. moreover, in several earlier occasions the agents cheques were accepted by the first opposite party in similar situations .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... can only be entertained by the forum below. so, the order passed by the forum below directing the opposite party/insurance company to pay a sum of rs.4,603/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19..4..2002 till realization is to be upheld. hence we do so. 9. the forum below has also awarded a ..... that consumer forums cannot be treated or considered as civil courts. it may be correct to say that for the effective implementation of the provisions of the consumer protection act, some of the provisions of the code of civil procedure are made applicable. but the consumer forums or the state commissions or the national commission constituted under the consumer ..... impugned order passed by the forum below. 3.the points that arise for consideration are:- whether there was any bar by virtue of section.175 of the motor vehicle act, 1988 in entertaining the dispute in op:89/02 by the forum below viz, cdrf, thrissur? is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... honble supreme court (new india assurance co.ltd. vs. harshadbhai modhiya and another ) wherein it was held that any contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the insurance act and the policy conditions of the insurance have to be scrupulously followed and in the instant case the opposite party/company can no may be blamed for disallowing the claim. ..... party could not be held negligent or deficient in disallowing the claim of the complainant. 9. in the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 4.11.2003 in o.p.no.158/03 of the cdrf, idukki there by dismissing the complaint. in the facts and circumstances in the case the parties are ..... the policy condition. the opposite party further submitted that the claim made by the complainant was untenable and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. the evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as pw1 and documents exts.p1 to p5. exts.r1 was produced by the opposite party in support .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... limited, chingavanam? 3. is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/new india assurance company ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim putforward by the complainant company? 4. the order as to reliefs and costs? 5. the evidence in this case consists of the oral testimonies of pws 1 and 2, rws 1 ..... cannot be any dispute that the complainant is a consumer coming within the ambit of the consumer protection act as defined under sec.2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the complainant sought for the relief of getting the insurance claim of rs.20,00,000/-. this commission had the pecuniary jurisdiction at the relevant time to grant ..... of the claim is illegal and unsustainable under law. the complainant is a consumer as defined under the provisions of sec,2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act and the said illegal repudiation of the claim by the opposite party will amount to deficiency of service. on 24..1..2001 the complainant issued a lawyer notice to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... same with the third opposite party. it duly forwarded the same to the first opposite party. the third opposite party has acted only as a nodal bank collecting and transmitting the insurance premium. the claim applications received from the complainants were also promptly forwarded to the first opposite party. the third opposite party ..... has nothing to do with the row between the complainants and the opposite parties. 4. before the forum, the first complainant gave oral ..... arises for consideration is whether the findings of the cdrf, alappuzha can be supported in light of ext.b9 claim form of national agricultural insurance and the consequent insurance. 5. the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/first opposite party relying on the decision of the hon. supreme court of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... the claim appeal has to be preferred to government secretary within 60 days. from there appeal will lie to insurance ombudsman. therefore complaint is to be dismissed. 4. second and third opposite parties are national insurance company. they in their version contended thus:- the claim has been lodged after the time prescribed under the ..... in filing the claim petition. thereafter ext.a6 letter was sent to the principal secretary, financial department who sent a reply rejecting the claim petition. the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. complainant filed the complaint claiming the policy amount. 3. first opposite party, state of kerala represented ..... finance department and from there she has to file appeal before the insurance ombudsman and that therefore complaint is not maintainable. there is no merit in the above contention. section 3 of consumer protection act provides that the provision of the act shall be in addition to not in derogation of provisions of any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... are also having jurisdiction to entertain the same disputes. but this type of disputes will be exclusively entertained by the wcc as per the preview of the wcc act and mact act. the forum is not having extra ordinary legal jurisdiction to entertain this type of disputes. it is well settled by the honorable national commission and the honorable ..... they have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. another contention is that the policy covers only the liabilities of only 15 employees which araised under the workmen compensation act. the total persons covered by the complainant under the said policy, is not sufficient when compared to the actual pay roll of employees those who employed by the ..... complainant has a case that the company taken a workmens compensation policy from the appellant insurance company for the workers of the company with an effective from 15-2-08 to 14-2-09 wide policy no. cwc/0064365/0000/00. on 28-4-08 at about 11am one viswanathan and on 6-5-08 and one babu, both .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... improper packing of the said articles by the appellant/complainant? 3. whether the second respondent/second opposite party national insurance company ltd. can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the appellant/complainant? 4. is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 11-08-2004 passed by cdrf, ernakulam ..... respondents 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2). the counsel for the appellant/complainant much relied on the provisions of section 9 of the carriers act, 1865 and argued for the position that the first respondent/first opposite party, common carrier is liable for the damage caused to the household articles, which ..... dharwad district khadi gramudyog sangh reported in 2000 (2) cpr 33 (sc) that the provisions of section 9 of the carriers act can be made applicable to the proceedings under the consumer protection act and that the burden of proof of negligence, in a consumer complaint is on the common carrier and that the (complainant) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... notice to the policy holder informing him of the options available to him unless these are set forth in the policy. the aforesaid provisions of section 50 of the insurance act, 1938 would make it clear that the said notice informing the lapsing of policy need be given only if the details are not set forth in the policy. in other ..... of india (agents) regulations, 1972. the aforesaid regulations were framed in exercise of the powers vested in lic of india u/s 49 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956. regulation 4 of the said regulations would make it clear that the agents of lic are not authorized to collect any monies or to accept any risk for or on ..... that lic has not authorized the 3rd opposite party to collect premium for the policy. thus, the 3rd opposite party denied her liability to pay the insurance amount under the said insurance policy. 4. before the forum below ext.p1 to p9 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. no oral evidence was adduced from the side of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... it clear that the complainant could not be excluded from the definition of consumer as defined in sec.2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act. in the aforesaid decision the insurance policy was taken by a commercial unit for goods purchased or service hired in an activity which was not directly intended ended to generate profit. in ..... for furnishing or decorating the complainants hotel. he also relied on the decision rendered by the honble national commission in m/s.harsolia motors /appellant vs. m/s. national insurance company ltd. and others/ respondents reported in 2005 (1) cpr 1 (nc) and requested for allowing the complainant in op.no.577/03. 3. the points ..... 577/03 is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act, 1986 can be upheld.? 4. points 1 and 2:- there is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased flooring tiles manufactured by the 1st respondent / 1st opposite party through the 2nd .....
Tag this Judgment!