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

DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
IFFCI Tokio GIC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Anil – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advocate with Ms. Namita Wali, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 08.12.2015 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1598 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 08.07.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1037 of 2011.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) and have perused the record.

No one appears for the complainant (the respondent herein).

3. The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the insured vehicle meeting with an accident. The premium had been paid, the policy was valid, the accident had in fact actually taken place, the surveyor appointed by the insurance company had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,96,850/-. However the insured vehicle was being used for hire, in violation of the policy conditions. The two fora below have returned concurrent findings in favour of the complainant (the respondent herein), ordering the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) to pay the claim on non-standard basis i.e. at 75% of the loss assessed by its surveyor.

4. The vehicl

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