Back
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
PNC Infratech Limited – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (the opposite party) has filed above appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dated 15.09.2015, allowing CC/10/2010 and directing the appellant to pay Rs.6851441/- with interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs30000.
3. PNC Infratech Limited (the respondent) (the Insured) filed CC/10/2010, for directing IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (the appellant) (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs. 6851441/- with interest @14.5% per annum under Regulation-9 till actual payment, as the insurance claim, (ii) Rs.50000/- as incidental expenses, (iii) Rs.40000/- as cost of the litigation; and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The complainant stated that the Insured was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of construction of road and other like projects. The Insured was granted Rehabilitation Contract No.5
‘Reasonable precaution’ - Use of the term ‘reasonable precaution’ does not envisage for performance of impossible act.
Inundated - The rainfall measured 24 cm on a single day on 24th August, 2000. Many areas of these cities were inundated. As such, it is proved that cause of loss was inundation due continuous rain fa....
Unless report of Surveyor is established to be arbitrary or perverse the same requires to be considered.
(1) Breach – The breach in the Dam was caused due to heavy rains and that was clearly covered under the Insurance claim. The deficiency in service by erroneously repudiating the claim is established.....
Insurance – In absence of requisite evidence from Complainant to support peril covered under policy, no liability can be fastened upon Insurer.
Insurance – Collapse of building – Where policy in question is for reinstatement, Complainant is entitled for Reinstatement Value of similar building.
The burden of proof in insurance claims lies with the insurer to establish policy violations, and claims cannot be repudiated without substantial evidence supporting such breaches.
1. Investigated and determined - Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for s....
Findings of fact recorded by State Commission cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
Subsequent stage - The Insurer took the ground that the Insured had not allowed the Investigator for investigation and thus violated the terms and conditions, now at a subsequent stage, it could not ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
