Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... the ground averred in the appeals that appointment of authorized surveyor under section 64 um(1) of insurance act is a lame excuse on the part of respondent/insurance company, though the insurance company was intimated prior to submitting the insurance claim about the loss on account of shortage on receipt of the chemicals at ports of destination referred ..... did not recommend for reimbursement of any loss and, reported that claim as not payable since attracts provision of exclusion of policy clause no.4. (ii) the contention of the respondent/insurance company is that such a loss/shortage about the shipment are required to be intimated immediately under the policy terms and conditions, or date ..... 2006 and appellant appointed m/s.sgs india pvt.ltd. as surveyor, who carried out the survey of consignment received and noticed that there is shortage of 4.685 m.t. of the chemical and within the permissible limit of shortage of 0.25% of the total chemical, shipped quantity actual shortage worked out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... .4,41,000/-. hence, the complainant lodged report with the police. the claim was preferred with the insurance company. the o.p./insurance company appointed m/s.p.p.dalal and company as surveyor. the surveyor informed the insurance company that they had not received documents from the complainant firm and therefore it had not assessed the loss. as per sec.64 um of insurance act ..... survey report he mentioned as no claim and acting upon the said surveyors comment the insurance company sent repudiation letter dated 31/3/1999 vide exh.b. the insurance company also pleaded that there was violation of condition no.4(c) on the part of complainant company. when claim is submitted, insured is required to tender to insurance company all reasonable information assistance and proofs in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... in support of contentions raised in complaint is of no used at later stage. damages have been quantified by the surveyor appointed under the provisions of the insurance act, 1938. surveyor has adopted various methods to assess the damages. complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to disprove the formula adopted by the surveyor. it is ..... (iii) since the said amount of rs.16,75,976.07 is deposited by the opponent insurance company has been withdrawn by the complainant company, only interest @9% p.a. will be payable by the opponent insurance company. (iv) opponent insurance company is directed to pay an amount of rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account ..... were to be honoured. there are certain serious allegations against the surveyor made on behalf of the complainant as argued by learned advocate of the complainant. [4] on perusal of bulky record, we find that assessment of goods was carried out, complainant did not adduce any authentic documentary evidence to disprove method of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... . issue of copy of survey report to the complainant company is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of insurance act, 1938. however, we do not find any justification on the part of opponent insurance company to comply with these statutory provisions to issue a certified copy of survey report. the survey report cannot be ..... the opponent no.1 and 2 of the loss due to mistaken booking of the shares (not as per the request of their client), the opponent insurance company appointed authorized surveyor, who visited the office of the complainant company and also gathered required information for the purpose of investigation. thereupon, the delivery ..... therefore, loss occurred on account of such an event is excluded under the provisions of insurance policy vide general exclusion clause (a)6. the opponent insurance company tried to defend their action of repudiation of claim under the insurance policy. (4) this is an old complaint placed on board for hearing and disposal. though notices .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... the appellant/original opponent pleaded that the respondent/original complainant did not satisfy the provisions of section-66 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 as on the date of accident of ill-fated insured truck did not possess valid permit to ply the same on the road and to support this contention, he relied upon ..... 7417 owned by the respondent/original complainant for the period commencing from 22/4/2006 to 21/4/2007. during the validity period of insurance policy, the insured truck met with an accident on 28/5/2006. surveyor appointed by the appellant/original opponent insurance company assessed the damage caused to the truck to the extent of an ..... permit was not produced by the respondent/ original complainant inspite of reminders. truck was plying for carrying goods from 22/4/2006 in breach and violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. mere payment of necessary charges for obtaining carriage permit does not allow the respondent/original complainant to ply the vehicle .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... from the carrier and they also contended that the carrier had not co-operated with them. notwithstanding the foregoing the insured should have taken the proper steps as required from a prudent insured in acting as if un-insured by reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities including, inter alia, lodging of police complaint/fir etc., which does ..... no.3 : whether therefore opponent no.2 is liable for the loss sustained by the complainant due to non delivery of the consigned goods? answer : yes. point no.4 : what relief? answer : complaint is partly allowed as against opponent no.2. reasons ld.advocate for opponent no.1 in the course of arguments brought to our notice ..... opponent no.2 being owner of the country craft failed to remove the wreck of the said vessel. exhibit k is the copy of the said letter. 4. the opponent no.1 through their mangalore office dated 11/01/1999 informed the complainants that they have appointed mr.p.narayan as surveyor and requested the complainants .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... of this commission show that there was deficiency in the service of life insurance corporation. (18) shri gadkar appearing for the life insurance corporation has submitted that there is a legal sanction to calculate the surrender value under the insurance act to which we have no quarrel. in short, according to shri gadkar the ..... substantiate this contention he pointed out the fact of sending him discharge vouchers in repect of his policies. the life insurance corporation has admitted this fact in their additional written statement in iv(a). according to corporation, it was a mistake in sending the discharge vouchers. although the corporation regretted in sending ..... the policies; (ii) incorrect calculations of bonus; (iii) discrimination between two sets of customer in the matter of calculation of bonus and premium etc. (iv) odious attitude and conduct of the officers of the corporation in rendering necessary services to the policy holders; and (v) high handedness acquired by the corporation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... complainant. the complainant sent letters dated 30/8/2008, 25/10/2008 and 14/11/2008 to the opponent to settle his claim as per the provisions of the insurance act, 1938. on 4/12/2008, the complainant addressed a letter to the chairman and managing director of the opponent placing correct facts on the record and calling upon him to settle the remaining ..... recommended by the surveyor i.e. rs.86,72,995/- on non-standard basis. the complainant states that this deduction was highly objectionable and contrary to the provisions of the insurance act, 1938. the complainant further states that he was pressurized by the bank to accept the said amount. alongwith the statement and voucher, it is seen that an amount of rs.21 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... the benefit of cultivators in the state. the claim was processed through the respondent no.2/original opponent no.2, tahsildar who forwarded the papers to the insurance company on 4/6/2006. however, the since the claim was not considered (neither repudiated nor accepted), a consumer complaint was filed on 7/5/2008. the forum partly ..... by the forum holding that late mr. sachin was not a cultivator and, therefore, on his accidental death insurance cover as per the policy was not available to him. thus, we find that the act of the insurance company not to either consider the claim or repudiate the same establishes deficiency in service on the part of ..... on 4/6/2006. as far as limitation is concerned, it is submitted that insurance company neither allowed the claim nor repudiated the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that the consumer complaint is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 24-a of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... per the bank of rs.1,95,28,690/- was lying with the complainant. it is a company registered under the companies act. opponent no.1 is the insurance company itself and opponent no.2 is the divisional manager of the insurance company having office at jyoti chambers, j.v. marg, ghatkopar (w), mumbai. 2. according to the complainant-company, it had ..... of the opponent to favourably consider the complainants claim. they also claimed costs of rs.50,000/- from the opponent. the complainant filed various documents in support of the claim. 4. opponents filed written version and contested the complaint. according to opponent, the complaint is hopelessly time-barred as incident which gave rise to the present complaint occurred on 26-27 ..... rs.25,17,840/-, bill no.7 dated 20/07/2005 worth rs.16,78,560/-. (b) safed muesli vide invoice no.78 dated 02/07/2005 for rs.4,24,320/- and invoice no.81 dated 06/07/2005 for rs.48,95,040/- which was 4to5 days prior to date of loss. m/s.yogini products have claimed .....
Tag this Judgment!