SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

R.C.MANKAD, JATIN P.VAIDYA
A. CHUNILAL HARDWARE – Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. R.N. Mehta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. M.C. Desai, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President — Complainant No. 2 is a consumer organisation of which complainant No. 1 is a member. This complaint is filed for and on behalf of complainant No. 1 (complainant for short) for recovery of Rs. 9,60,000/- which includes Rs. 8,65.000/- claimed under the insurance policies taken by the complainant from the opponent.

2. The complainant is carrying on business of hardware articles from his shop which is in Odhav area of Ahmedabad. He had taken insurance of the shop and the goods and stock lying therein under three insurance policies from the opponent. Insurance policy which is fire insurance policy "C" was for Rs. 2 lakhs and it was valid for the period from January 30,1992 to January 29,1993. Under this policy, damage or loss to the building was covered upto Rs. 50,000/- and stock of hardware items etc. was covered to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Second policy which was shopkeeper's policy was valid for the period from September 23,1992 to September 22,1993 and it was for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Third policy which covered risk upto Rs. 1,41,000/- for loss of hardware articles etc. was valid for the period from November 4,1992 to November 3,1993. T







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top