Back
JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ashoke Debnath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM.—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) assailing the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (the State Commission) Order dated 30.11.2017 in First Appeal No. A/948/2015 partly allowing the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party and modified the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, West Bengal (“District Forum”), Order dated 28.05.2015 in CC No. 634/2014, to the extent of setting aside the direction for payment of punitive damages, while affirming the remaining findings and directions.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant is a businessman running a rice mill under the name and style of Mahadev Rice Mill. He availed a cash credit loan from Opposite Party (OP) - 3 for the purpose of expanding his business. As a pre- condition for sanction of the said loan, the complainant was required to insure the mill building, and accordingly obtained a Standard Fire and Speci
(1) Jurisdiction – Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a....
Revision under Section 21(b) of Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.
Court upheld the validity of the surveyor's report in determining insurance claims, emphasizing evidence over insurer claims of misrepresentation.
The validity of an insurance claim depends on adherence to policy conditions, including prompt notification of incidents and proper disclosure of property use.
(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....
Concurrent findings of fact from lower fora are binding unless proven perverse or erroneous, restraining re-assessment in revision petitions.
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like appellate Court.
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....
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
