Joginder Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company dated 2008-10-23
The complainant sought enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Forum to the assured value of the complainant’s vehicle, which was stolen during the period of validity of the insurance cover---The insurance policy expressly provided that the cover would not apply to the insured vehicle if it was used for “hire or reward”---The expressions “plies for hire” in the above-mentioned Orissa State statute and “… policy covers the use of the vehicle for any purpose other than hire and reward” (the latter used in the insurance policy) are clearly distinct in meaning and scope. Moreover, the terms of an insurance policy need to be construed strictly---the impugned order of the State Commission and that of the District Forum cannot be sustained and the revision petition of the insurance company needs to be allowed and that of the complainant has to be rejected. read more +
Vijaya Bank vs. Pooja G. Joshi dated 2008-10-23
Appeal against order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Complaint---the State Commission has directed the appellant bank to give credit and pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the respondent complainant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with effect from 3.6.1997 till its realization. Compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh has also been awarded---The counter-foil undisputedly is in the prescribed format of the pay-in-slip kept and maintained by the bank in its ordinary course of business for deposit of cash/cheque by its account holders and is bound in a book form---the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakh with the appellant bank and there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in giving credit of the sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the respondent. The appellant had failed to prove that it had not received the sum of Rs. 5 lakh as alleged by the respondent complainant. read more +
Sukumar Bag vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited dated 2008-10-22
Medi clamin Policy---The onus of proving that the complainant suffered from a heart disease prior to taking out the medi-claim insurance policy (a pre-existing condition) and also had knowledge of this lay entirely on the Insurance Company. After obtaining the opinion of Dr. S. Sen it could have itself sought to bring in Dr. Sen before the District Forum for giving evidence on affirmation. The least it could have done was to file the said opinion on an affidavit of Dr. Sen. It could have sought an opportunity to cite expert opinion even before the State Commission, as it was its own appeal before the State Commission. read more +
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Amrit K. Nehra dated 2008-10-17
Insurance dispute---Held that since in the present case the respondent was not holding a valid driving licence issued under the MV Act, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate the respondent. The State Commission as well as the District Forum erred in holding to the contrary. read more +
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. dated 2008-10-14
The said Rama Nand reportedly fell into a nalla on his way home from work and was traced by his family the next day---later he died---state Commission fixed the liability of Insurance Company---Considering the evidence on record of the District Forum, including the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the case of the deceased Rama Nand, the State Commission has rejected the contentions of the petitioners that they were not informed (or were unaware) of the death of Rama Nand or that the said Rama Nand was not on duty with the petitioners’ local PWD office when he met with the accident which resulted in head injuries and ultimately his death a few days after the accident---Revision petition dismissed. read more +
Canara Bank vs. Shri Binay Kumar Jha dated 2008-10-14
Complainant is a physically challenged, applied for and was selected by the District Industries Centre (DIC), as a candidate under the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yojana (PMRY), given necessary training and recommended to the petitioner bank for loan assistance. On his application, the bank approved a project cost of Rs. 50,000/- against which it sanctioned a loan of Rs. 47,500/- in early September 2000 but did not release the loan despite the complainant’s compliance of the requirements stipulated by the bank and several requests, as well as follow-up by the office of the District Magistrate---The revision petition dismissed. read more +
Biswanath Aich vs. Rama Prosad Chattopadhyaya dated 2008-10-14
The dispute in this case pertains to the sale of a flat consisting of three rooms, toilet and bathroom in the Southern portion of the first floor of the house of the petitioner to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 3.70 lakh.--- Prima facie, it would appear that there is an element of justification in the contention of the petitioner inasmuch as the first letter of intent dated did not refer to the use of the common amenities and facilities by the respondent / complainant which would have been necessary for use of the flat by the respondent / complainant and this was, therefore, clarified in the statement reportedly signed voluntarily by the respondent / complainant---matter remanded for retrial. read more +
