SUBHASH CHANDRA, J. RAJENDRA
Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Kanchan Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—This Revision Petition is filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act’), against order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP (State Commission) dated 02.03.2016 in First Appeal No.725 of 2013 allowing the Appeal against District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar, (District Forum) order in CC No.139/ 2007 dated 24.01.2013, wherein the District Forum rejected the complaint.
2. As per the Registry report, there is 15 days delay in filing the Revision Petition and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that she is the wife of the deceased Pramod Kumar Singh, who obtained a life insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000 under Policy No.213842779, Table No.75-20, on 25.09.2003. The policy required a half-yearly premium payment of Rs.3,213, which was duly paid up to 26.02.2005 as per the terms set by the OP, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The deceased had paid the premiums as per policy rul
Surinder Kaur and Ors. v. LIC of India and Ors.
Mithoolal Nayak vs. LIC of India
Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar and Ors. vs. LIC India
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.