Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANUP K THAKUR, PM
AMAR PLASTICS – Appellant
Versus
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the complainant's premises and insurance policy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. description of the incident leading to loss. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claims made by the complainant. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. defense arguments made by op-1. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. summary of the respondent's case and rebuttals. (Para 10 , 11 , 16) |
| 6. court's analysis of the claims and legal context. (Para 12 , 13 , 22) |
| 7. court's findings and justification for claim repudiation. (Para 14 , 15 , 23 , 26) |
| 8. discussion on the insurance policy terms. (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 9. court's conclusion and order. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
ORDER
ANUP K. THAKUR
1.The complainant, a partnership firm, on it’s plot No.103, Road No.12, MIDC Area, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093, has constructed two buildings namely (i) “Amar House” comprising ground, mezzanine plus one floor, and (ii) “Amar House Annexe”. The complainant allowed one Atos Origin India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “ATOS”) to use and occupy the premises under various Business Conducting/ Leave and license Agreements. ATOS incurred substantial expenditure to refurbish the premises suited to their needs. Therefore, specific provision for a lock-in-period was made in the said Agreements. ATOS
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
