Jaipur Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd dated 2008-05-26
The complainant took insurance policy from the respondent for a large sum of Rs. eight crore. Unfortunately, a fire took place in the factory of the complainant in the intervening night of the 1st –2nd April, 2003 at 11.40 p.m.---HELD THAT---The Insurance company is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount w.e.f. 1.12.2003 i.e. after six months from the date of the fire. Considering this aspect we direct the insurance company to reimburse the complainant for a total sum of Rs. 1,40,25,745/- with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1.12.2003. read more +
Dr.V.K.Ghodekar vs. Smt. Sumitra Pralhad Korgaonkar dated 2008-05-22
The questions which require consideration in this revision petition are: (a) Whether a medical practioner before prescribing a drug, which has side effects, should be careful or not in informing the patient about its side effects such as hypoglycemia etc.? (b) Whether, a doctor should give treatment for diabetes to a person who is alcoholic, straightway on the basis of urine test report, without confirming by proper pathological test that the patient is suffering from diabetes and thereafter without informing the patient that the medicine should be taken before food and alcohol should be avoided?---HELD THAT---it is the duty of the doctor, before prescribing diabetic drug, to inform the patient about the side effects of a drug, particularly to an alcoholic person and he should be informed that alcohol may increase sugar level and that diabetic drug should be taken before food. read more +
Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Others. vs. Divyang Jain & Others. dated 2008-05-21
The Complainant Divyang Jain paid a sum of Rs.6,76,887/- to the petitioners and purchased a Honda City car and had it registered. Within a short period, after the purchase of the car on 31-3-2004, he noticed (February, 2005) that the paint of the car was fading. He approached the petitioners on 22-4-2005, 23-4-2005 & 25-4-2005 for corrective action but the petitioners' did not respond---The District Forum held the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service and passed the following order: (i) To carry out paint re-finishing to bring the exterior of the car to normal condition without any charges. (ii) To issue fresh warranty in respect of re-finishing of paint as per directions No. (i) for a period of ten years (as per the expected life of the vehicles) without any charges. (iii) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant, as casual and insensitive approach of O.P.s gave birth to this undesirable litigation."---ORDER OF DISTRICT FORUM AFFIRMED. read more +
Maya Devi vs. Life Insurance Corpn. of India dated 2008-05-21
The State Commission held that death of the insured was due to murder and, therefore, the heirs of the insured were not entitled to any benefit under the policy. Hence, allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint---Hence, the only question which requires consideration in this Revision Petition is – whether the death caused due to murder of the insured can be held to be 'accidental death'?---HELD THAT---LIC policy excludes death due to limited causes mentioned in Exclusion clauses under para 10(b) and, therefore, it is totally irrelevant to find out the background of the deceased. Further, even in case where there is a criminal background of the assured, it would be difficult to hold that his murder was not accidental unless he has taken up the quarrel and that the immediate cause of injury was deliberate and willful act of the insured himself. read more +
Ranjay Oswal vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. dated 2008-05-19
The only question which requires consideration is whether the fire which destroyed the factory, building, machinery, stocks and buried the father and brother of Complainant No.1, was self-engineered or not?---HELD THAT---it cannot be imagined that the fire was self-engineered for taking away the life of the father and brother of the Complainant No.1. Such far-fetched imagination on the part of the Insurance Company can be stated to be bordering on unfair trade practice. read more +
M/S. ROSHAN LAL OILS MILLS LTD. vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. dated 2008-05-14
Complainant had taken a fire insurance policy from the Opposite Party (OP) covering the risks mentioned therein in respect of the stocks of mustard seeds and/or toria and/or soybean and goods of all seeds of like nature during their storage in the silo installed near the oil mill inside the factory premises of the insured---Surveyors did not doubt the fact that spontaneous combustion had occurred and mustard seeds were damaged. But they did not observe any evidence of fire. The schedule to the insurance policy specifically provides that the Insurance Company had taken premium for covering risk due to 'Basic Spontaneous Combustion, T.A.' That means there was insurance cover for damage due to spontaneous combustion of the stocks---HELD THAT---Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.56,08,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. because at the relevant time, i.e., the year 1990, the prevalent rate of interest was much more than what it is now read more +
Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd dated 2008-05-12
Can a builder after agreeing to deliver the possession within a stipulated time, raise a contention that as the price of the flat/property has gone up, it should not be directed to pay any compensation or to pay compensation at reduced rate for delay in delivering the possession of the property?---held that---such contention of any builder is unjustified and unreasonable because after sale of the property all the benefits accrue to the purchaser and not to the vendor. In any case, if such contention is accepted, the builders/contractors would earn crores of rupees by delaying the delivery of the possession of the flat/property for months together for one reason or the other---The Complainants have approached this Commission on 3rd May, 2000 with a prayer that the Opposite Party – Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., be directed to deliver possession of apartment No.502, on 5th floor, E Block, Celebrity Homes and also to pay interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.26,26,790/-, i.e., the amount deposited by them with the Opposite Party, w.e.f. 10.10.1998 till the date of delivery of possession. In the alternative, they have prayed that if the Opposite Party, is unable to deliver the possession of the apartment, then the Opposite Party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.26,26,790/- to the Complainants with interest @ 24% from the date of payment of the instalment till the date of actual realization from the Opposite Party.Held That---the ends of justice would be met if, for this unjustified delay, we direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 12% per annum from 1st November, 1998 till 1st December, 2007 on the amount deposited by the Complainant upto 1st November, 1997 i.e. in all on a sum of Rs.25,29,770/---Further, for the high-handed and rough behaviour of the Manager of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. This amount shall be deposited with this Commission by way of bank draft drawn in the name of the Registrar of this Commission which shall be transferred to the "Consumer Legal Aid Account" maintained by this Commission. read more +
