Back
BINOY KUMAR
International Air Transport Association (IATA) – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
ORDER
The present five Complaints have been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by the Complainant - International Air Transport Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘IATA’) against United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party / Insurance Company / Insurer) for rejection of different claim amounts relating to its five different agents.
2. The brief facts in the five Complaints are more or less same except for the names of the agents, claim amounts and surveyors findings. Though the Insurance Policy numbers are different but the contents are the same emanating from the same master Policy. For the sake of convenience Complaint - C.C. No. 339/2015 is taken as the lead case as the amount of claim is the highest and which was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party and Counsel for the Complainant as a lead case. The Complainant, which is a non-profit organisation under Canadian law and a trade association of international airlines tasked with formulating policies to aid the aviation sector globally and responsible for regulating the billing collections and se
Insurance Policy – Provisions & terms of policy have to be strictly construed & exclusion clauses read narrowly.
(1) Adverse Claim – The law mandates that a party confronted with an adverse claim must voice its opposition; failure to do so results in a deemed acceptance of the allegations or facts asserted agai....
Insurers are not liable for losses arising from the insured's failure to follow operational guidelines; the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish policy coverage.
Mixed up figures – Commission was not in a position to issue any positive direction in favour of the Complainant based on mixed up figures that also embrace the consignment belonging to one another u....
“Surveyors who failed to act as per IRDA guidelines and unnecessarily delayed the settlement of the claim, amounts to deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company.”
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.
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
