Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Consumer Complaints No. 687 of 2015 and 688 of 2015 have been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act’) against the Opposite Parties seeking to direct the OPs:—
CC No. 687 of 2015
“i. Direct the opposite parties to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,26,13,266 to the complainant towards settlement of its claims arising under and out of the Insurance Policy No.421800/48/2011/2737 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, past, pendete lite future;
ii. Direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant appropriate compensation for the loss and expenses incurred by the complainant due to the opposite parties’ failure to discharge the insurance agreement in question;
iii. Pass such other order or direction that this commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice’.
CC No. 688 of 2015
i. Direct the opposite parties to make pa3mient of an amount of Rs.1,14,96,531 to the complainant towards settlement of its claims arising under and out of the Insurance Policy No.421800/48/2011/2737 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, past, pendete lite future;
ii. Direct the opposit
Insurance—Delay in intimation and FIR can be a valid ground for rejection of insurance claim.
1) Mere reading shows that Violation of Policy Conditions written in surveyor’s report are patently ambiguous and incoherent.2) Nothing prevented the insurance co.’s surveyor to confirm from relevant....
(1) Declaration made by Opponent no.1 that insurance policy issued by Opponent no.1 is void-ab-initio is illegal.(2) Only the insurance policy given by Opponent no.1 to complainant will come into exi....
Insurer's repudiation of claim based on non-disclosure of prior claims was illegal, as warranties were not binding and material facts were not concealed.
Insurance claim cannot be repudiated only on the ground of delay on part of complainant in intimating Insurance Company.
The court emphasized timely settlement of insurance claims and the reliance on surveyor assessments despite the insurer's delays.
(1) The Surveyor’s Report Threshold: Once a surveyor submits a final report and the insurer accepts it, any further delay in disbursing the funds constitutes a deficiency. The insurer cannot hold ont....
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....
(1) Repudiation Grounds – An Insurer cannot introduce new grounds for rejecting a claim during litigation that were not part of the original repudiation letter.(2) Standard of Proof for Fidelity Clai....
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
