Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member 1. All these appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.176/2007, 177/2007, 178/2007, 179/2007, 180/2007, orders dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.181/2007, 182/2007 and 183/2007 and orders dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.184/2007, 185/2007, 186/2007, 187/2007, 188/2007 and 189/2007 by the South Mumbai District Forum (herein after referred as District Forum in short). All the consumer complaints are dismissed by the District Forum and, therefore, original complainants/appellants preferred these appeals which are disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been filed separately against each impugned order on the ground that the deficiency in service on the part of respondent/National Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as Insurance Co.) was not properly appreciated by the District Forum though the cargo i.e. chemicals (Acetic Acid Glacial/Vinyl Acetate Monomer) w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2620; 2008(3)AWC3176(SC); (2008)3CompLJ409(SC); III(2008)CPJ6(SC); (2008)8MLJ141(SC); 2008(9)SCALE105; (2008)10SCC626
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are filed against the common order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ('Commission' for short) allowing in part OP No. 45 of 1997 and OP No. 49 of 1997. OP No. 45 of 1997 was filed by M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partner Rajender Kumar Jain (respondents 1 and 2 in CA No. 4306/2003). OP No. 49 of 1997 was filed by M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its two partners (respondents 1 to 3 in CA No. 4307/2003).2. As the ranks of parties differ in the two appeals and as some parties were given up before the Commission, for convenience, we will also refer to the parties as follows : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as `Appellant' or `Insurer'; M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 & 2 in the first matter) and M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 to 3 in the second matter) as the `complainants'; M/s Niranjan Ship...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2955 OF2022UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS LEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This appeal questions an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,1 (hereinafter, NCDRC) which allowed the insurance claim of Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, Levi / insured / respondent). Prior to this order, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, insurer / appellant) had repudiated the policy issued to Levi. Facts 2. The insurer issued to Levi a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy (hereinafter, SFSP Policy), for the period of 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2007. This policy covered Levis stocks while in storage for the sum of 30 crores. Levi obtained another SFSP Policy for the period of 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 on similar terms. Meanwhile, the parent company of Levi (i.e., Levi Strauss & Co.) had obtained a global policy from Alli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. HAZARIKA, J1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.1.1997 passed in Money Suit No. 108 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit in the court of Assistant District Judge at Nagaon for realisation of Rs. 6,13,596 and for payment of interest @ 18% per annum till payment of the decretal sum, with cost of the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, as averred in the plaint is that he was running the Chaparmukh Rice Mill, being the owner, which comprises the mill buildings and premises alongwith stock of mill were insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the defendant at Nagaon Branch, Haiborgaon, Assam bearing policy No. 130101/11/02989 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 which was valid from 1.3.89 to 28.2.90 upto 4. P.M. The said policy covered risks including flood and inundation amongst others.The plaintiff-ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.8.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Assistant District and Sessions Court), Dindigul.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants, is the appellant. The appellant, questioning the liability to indemnify the fifth respondent herein in respect of the accident which took place on 27.10.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. in which the husband of the first respondent died, had filed this appeal. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated are as follows: 2.1. First respondent is wife of the deceased, namely Thiru Balakrishnan and respondents 2 to 4 are son and daughters of the deceased. As per the claim petition, Thiru.Bala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t January, 2015 % + W.P.(C) No.585/2015 SHATRUHAN LAL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Amrendra K. Singh, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, Adv for R-1. Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv for R-3. Mr. Dipak Nag and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advs for R-2 Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC and Ms. Shriya Singh, Adv for UOI. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks reliefs of (i) setting aside of the order dated 17th July, 2014 of the respondent No.2 Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA); (ii) direction to the respondent No.2 IRDA to frame suitable guidelines in the matter; (iii) issuance of a writ declaring Section 113 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as ultra vires the Constitution of India; (iv) issuance of a direction t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1906; AIR2008SC3145; 2008(2)KLT1006(SC); (2008)6MLJ142(SC); (2008)151PLR761; RLW2009(1)SC85; 2008(8)SCALE235; 2008AIRSCW5298; 2008(7)SCC526; (2008)3SCC(Cri)177; 2008ACJ1906; 2008(4)LH(SC)2460
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle was sought to be taken by him. For the said purpose, the second respondent issued a third party cheque towards payment of insurance premium. The Development Officer of the appellant by inadvertence issued a cover note. However, when the said mistake came to his notice, the respondent No.2 was contacted by the Development Officer. He was asked to pay the amount of premium. It was not tendered and in stead the respondent No.2 is said to have returned the original cover note and took back the cheque. The original cover note as also all the duplicate copies thereof was cancelled. The said insurance cover was issued for the period 3.9.1991 to 2.9.1992. On or about 12.9.1991, the said vehicle met with an accident. First respondent who suffered an injury therein filed a claim petition in terms of the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR939]; (2001)IILLJ581Kant
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the orders of E.I. Court in Application No. 41/1987 before the Employees Insurance Court at Bangalore.2. The facts that led to the filing of this appeal in brief are as under:The appellant herein is a private limited Company engaged in designing, installation of air pollution control, humidification and ventilation system. It has registered office at Bangalore with branches at different places outside Karnataka and independent units at Madras, Coimbatore, Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta. According to the appellant-applicant the branches mentioned supra are independent units having their employees. Office at Bangalore do not have control over these units. Therefore, the employees in these branches that too outside Karnataka cannot be considered as part of the Bangalore unit. The appellant got a notice from the respondent informing that it is coverable as per the Notification issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2003)ACC682; III(2003)ACC264; 2003ACJ623; 2003(1)KLT701
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these appeals, the main question for consideration is whether passengers of private vehicles carried not for hire or reward (gratuitous passengers) are covered by insurance policies called 'Act policies' which are taken only to meet the minimum requirements of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). Facts are not disputed. In all these appeals, the accidents took place during the period 17.1.1980 to 10.3.1988, that is, during the period when old Act was in force as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force only with effect from 1.7.1989. All these appeals except M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 were filed by the insurance companies as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals fastened the liability on the insurance company. In M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 arising out of O.P. (M.V.) No. 116 of 1991, the Tribunal held that under 'Act policy', the insurer is not liable to indemnify the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!