Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Amulya Kumar Nayak – Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 19.06.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 132/2023 in which order dated 03.02.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 113/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned judgment and final order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the State Commission in FA 132/2023.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Commission.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 15.12.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on dated nil and 07.02.2024 respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the
Insurance Policy – Vehicle Insurance – Theft – Insurance Company cannot travel beyond the reasons stated in repudiation letter.
Revisional Jurisdiction of NC – Concurrent findings given by Forum & State Commission : No illegality or material irregularity: NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded b....
(1) Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract.(2) Jurisdiction conferred on National Commission under Section 21 (b) of Act has been transgressed
Intimation – the delay in intimation to the Insurance Company as also the purported transfer of the vehicle to a third party by entering into a sale agreement is no more a factor for the insurer to d....
: Limitation : Repeated representations will not extend period of limitation.
(1) Sufficient Cause - Thus, it is appropriate to observe that it feels satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay for the reason....
1. Delay in filing FIR and insurance claim to be condoned if reasonable explanation given, especially in case of theft of vehicle.2. Mere delay cannot be a reason for not providing claim as per Apex....
(1) Once insurer fails to mention particular ground for repudiation and processes claim with some positive action, Insurer cannot subsequently raise that ground and repudiate claim.(2) Contractual ob....
Insurance Policy – Theft – Delay in intimating theft of vehicle to insurance company – Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim.
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
