Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
D. R. Shirasao (Presiding Judicial Member)
Complainant – Appellant
Versus
Opponent No. 1 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance claim based on vessel damage. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defenses raised regarding warranty and jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. legal basis for judgment on warranty and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. order details and directions for claim payment. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's findings on illegality of claim repudiation. (Para 12) |
1. Complainant has filed this complaint for getting insurance claim from opponent alongwith other reliefs
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Opponent No. 1 through its Agent, opponent No. 2 had taken the tanker vessel owned by complainant named - MT CRYSTAL for all risks under Marine Hull Insurance policy. Complainant was required to pay total premium of Rs.6,72,528 to opponents and the same was payable in quarterly instalment of Rs.1,68,132. Accordingly on 6.11.2006 complainant had paid first instalment of amount of premium by cheque to opponent and thereafter insurance policy had come into effect on 9.11.2006. In that respect the proposal form was given by complainant to opponent No. 1 on 23.11.2006. While giving proposal form general particulars were required to be submitted by complainant. As per this column, information regarding ac
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
