Back
AVM J. RAJENDRA
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
T. Rajagopala Lyengar & Sons – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 349 of 2006, wherein the Appeal filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was allowed and set aside the Order dated 17.05.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul (“District Forum”) in CC No. 41 of 2005 wherein the complaint was dismissed.
2. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. The Complainant, M/s. T. Rajagopala lyengar & Sons, a Partnership Firm represented by its Partner Shri R. Nandakumar, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. at Kodaikanal. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 others are identified as the OPs Insurer in this matter.
3. In brief, the Complainant renewed their burglary insurance policy with the OPs Insurance Company, which covered the loss of currency notes and coins up to Rs.7,50,000/- under Policy No. 090700/46/ 03/00015, w.e.f. from 03.08.2003 to 02.08.2004. The Complain
(1) Contractual terms – In appreciation of contract of insurance, it is an established legal position that the scope for introduction of fresh terms or interpretation terms to introduce new dimension....
Insurer should not repudiate claim of insured merely on ground of short delay.
(1) National commission - The power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.(2) Revision....
(1) Review – The power of National Commission to review under Section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.(2) Error – It is evident....
Exclusion Clause – Complainant/Respondent is at no fault and the contention of the Appellant that the Complainant/Respondent left the money unattended which falls under the Exclusion Clause hold no w....
(1) Voidable policy – when the complainant himself, by his own acts, rendered the Policy absolutely voidable, cannot be allowed to succeed on the ground of delay in repudiation having regard to the s....
1) Fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties kno....
The High Court emphasized the importance of concurrent findings of fact, the limited scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in reaching....
Insurance policy – Exclusion clause – Burden of proof is on the insurer to show that case falls within the purview of exclusion clause – In case of ambiguity, benefit goes to insured.
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
