NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs. AVTAR SINGH dated 2009-02-23
Respondent/complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was the owner of Maruti Car bearing Registration No. PB-02-AC-3363, which was insured with the petitioner. The validity of the policy was from 21.11.2001 to 20.11.2002. The vehicle met with an accident on 29.09.2002. Respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,17,391.63 on repair of the vehicle and a sum of Rs.1,500/- as towing charges. Thus, in total, the respondent spent a sum of Rs.1,18,891/---Insurance Company repudiated claim---“no owner of the motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer”, contends that the vehicle in dispute could not be insured as the same was fitted with CNG Gas Kit. This question would arise only if the petitioner was able to prove that the vehicle was originally fitted with a petrol/diesel engine but later on the respondent had altered it to CNG Gas Kit. No such plea was taken by the petitioner in its written statement or before the District Forum or the State Commission. In the absence of a plea that the respondent had changed the vehicle from petrol/diesel engine to CNG Gas Kit, the argument raised before us has to be rejected---petition dismissed. read more +
BAL KISHAN vs. OM PRAKASH dated 2009-02-19
Bal Kishan and Sohan Lal, sons of Puran Chand, owned land measuring 17 acres in Village Rangrikhera Tehsil Sirsa, Haryana, out of which 11.5 acres of land was given by them to Gulzari Lal, father of the complainant/respondent-Om Prakash on lease for a period of one year on payment of Rs.1,20,000/- @ Rs.9,600/- per acre. The total amount of lease was paid by the lessee to Bal Kishan-petitioner herein in advance. Petitioner, owner of the land, had an electric connection on his tubewell and there were outstanding dues of Rs.28,548/- against the petitioner from the Electricity Department. The petitioner did not deposit the amount and, consequently, electricity connection was disconnected. Respondent could not draw any water due to non-supply of electricity. The crops were badly damaged---It was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that water is made available for irrigation purposes. The water could be supplied either through canal or through the tubewell, which was being run with electricity. Insofar as the electricity charges are concerned, the same were to be defrayed by the petitioner. There was no written agreement between the parties. Without their being a condition in the agreement that the electricity charges were to be paid by the respondent, the petitioner cannot shift the burden of payment of electricity on the respondent---Petition dismissed. read more +
BIHAR UDYOG vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. dated 2009-02-18
Petitioner filed the complaint with the allegation that he had obtained two insurance policies from the respondent---It was stated that there were riots on 09.12.1992 and the rioters looted the mill property after breaking its gate, burnt the property and killed the Manager of the mill named Bijay Kumar Jha. It was further averred that the cash amount of Rs.75,000/- was looted after breaking open the iron safe. It was also stated that the respondent had paid insurance claim of the first insurance policy dated 08.01.1992 but rejected the claim under the second insurance policy which was in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for the cash kept in the iron safe---Petitioner has not produced its cash book or any documentary evidence that it had cash in hand of Rs.75,000/- which he had kept in the cash chest of the mill during the relevant time. Admittedly, the petitioner in the first two F.I.R.s lodged by it on 09.12.1992, did not mention anything about the looting of cash from the cash chest. It is only in the third F.I.R. lodged on 13.12.1992 that it was mentioned that the iron chest kept in the factory for keeping the cash had been broken open and amount of Rs.75,000/- kept in it, was looted. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to explain as to why the fact of looting of the sum of Rs.75,000/- from the cash chest of the petitioner was not mentioned in the previous F.I.R.s. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that cash of Rs.75,000/- was either kept or looted from the factory---Petition dismissed. read more +
SECRETARY, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ORISSA vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO & ANR dated 2009-02-17
Complainant appeared in the High School Certificate (Supplementary Examination) as an ex-regular student of G. Udaygiri Hubback High School in 1983. The examination was conducted by the petitioner. Respondent obtained his mark-sheet and provisional pass certificate issued by the petitioner through the Headmaster, G. Udaygiri Hubback High School. His date of birth was recorded in the provisional certificate and admit card as 10.05.1964 but in the original matriculation certificate issued by the petitioner, his date of birth was shown as 10.05.1961---Held that---This seems to be clearly an afterthought to cover up the deficiency committed by the petitioner in showing an incorrect date of birth of the respondent, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice---Petition dismissed. read more +
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs. M/S. KRISHNA POWERLOOM FACTORY & ORS. dated 2009-02-13
Complainant/respondent is a registered firm and is engaged in business of manufacture of clothes---complainant through respondent no.2- Bank of Baroda deposited Hundi Builties along with copies of the bills in the name of respondent no.3- Janta Vastralaya, Cloth Merchant against for recovery of amount of builties from respondent no.3---Respondent no.2 was directed to pay the amount to the Complainant after recovering the same from the petitioner-Punjab National Bank---Respondent no.2 neither recovered the amount from the petitioner nor gave any information to the complainant. Complainant sent a notice to respondent no.2 through its Advocate seeking payment of the amount but no payment was made. Complainant also sent a registered letter to the petitioner regarding the payment of the amount---Except for denying in the written statement, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of the fact that the stamp put on the builty was not that of the petitioner-Bank or that the same was fake. Petitioner failed to produce its registers to show that the endorsement number assigned on the builty has not been made by the petitioner---Held that---We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service in handing over the builty to either respondent no. 3-Janta Vastralaya or to return the same to respondent no.2-Bank of Baroda or the consignor/complainant in case it did not find any shop in the name of Janta Vastralaya. The railway receipt was sent to one Shri Ram Prasad on 15.12.1989 and on presentation, the Railway Department released the goods to Shri Ram Prasad---Petition dismissed. read more +
CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD vs. DR. D.J. DESOUZA dated 2009-02-12
That complainant purchased an OBM from the petitioner---The petitioner dispatched the OBM by courier service. No Service Engineer was sent to install the same. Complainant had to install the OBM himself. Within two months of the installment, the instrument began developing faults. Respondent sent two letters to the petitioner but to no weigh---Held that---In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest awarded @ 18% is on the higher side and, accordingly, we reduce the rate of interest to 12%. read more +
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR vs. MR. SHISHIR KHANDELWAL dated 2009-02-11
Complainant/respondent had taken a Fire Policy ‘C’ in the name of M/s Khandelwal Mineral Industries, hypothecated to the Bank of India, covering stock of Acid slurry/LABSA, tanks platform and building/shed, etc. During the validity of the Policy, the respondent reported to the petitioner that a PVC container filled with LABSA kept in the godown leaked totally and spread over the godown and ground due to the leaking of the container---The Surveyor found that the tank had broken due to excessive load---the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that “the tank had broken-up due to excessive load” and the claim was closed as “No Claim”---It would be seen from the Report of the Surveyor that he has not recorded a categorical finding that the loss was due to the excessive load rather he has used the words ‘might have happened’ which is in the realm of conjectures, probability, guesswork or uncertainty. Further, the inference drawn by him that the leakage may have been caused as the tank wall could not bear the load is an opinion whereas the fact of leakage of the tank due to excessive load would be a finding of facts which had to be based on findings. The question that the tank may have been of inferior quality or it may have been filled beyond the permissible quantity, the grounds on which the claim was repudiated, is a mere opinion of the Surveyor based on his own understanding and conjectures---Revision Petition dismissed. read more +
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. vs. NALIA NARSIMHA ROA dated 2009-02-11
Respondent- in his complaint, alleged that being an agriculturist labourer, he used to take land from others on lease and raise tomato crop to earn his livelihood. That he purchased tomato seeds from the Manager, Sales Counter, National Seeds Corporation, Vijayawada along with other farmers, i.e., one D. Gopaiah and R. Venkateswar Rao and the same were sown in 4 acres at the rate of 180 grams per acre totaling to 720 grams in the month of August, 1995. That he expected to get net profit of Rs.15,000/- per acre. However, to his utter surprise and dismay, there was no fruit/yield from the tomato plants---the petitioner did not turn up in spite of several demands and requests---The respondents had not sent their representatives to the fields of the complainant/respondents in spite of their making representations to that effect. Petitioner failed to take any step on the representations/complaints received from the respondents. The Report submitted by the Expert can certainly be taken into consideration even if there was no analysis of the seeds from a laboratory. Non-examination of the seeds from the laboratory is not fatal to the case of the complainants whose fields were inspected by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy regarding which he gave an opinion as an expert. Nothing stopped the petitioner from sending the sample seeds for analysis to a laboratory. There is no explanation as to why it could not send the seeds for analysis---Petitions allowed in part. read more +
INDRAPRASTHA WELFARE SOCIETY vs. SMT. SHANTHALA B.S. & ORS. dated 2009-02-06
Complainants approached the petitioner for allotment of sites pursuant to the advertisements made by Vyalikaval House Building Society, Bangalore---The layouts proposed by the Opposite Party were Hosahalli Layout, Vishweswaranagar Layout, Chanakyapuri Layout and Ganganahalli Layout. Complainants paid the requisite amount and were made members of the Society. A passbook was issued to each one of them. Periodically, as per the demand, they had paid the money towards the allotment of sites to the Society---In spite of lapse of several years, the Society neither completed the formation of layouts nor allotted the sites---Petitioner did not choose to file Appeal before the State Commission against 10 other complainants who were similarly situated. Petitioners have accepted their liability as against the other 10 complainants. The petitioner cannot turn around and now say that he cannot be held jointly and severally liable qua these respondents. If the petitioner accepts his liability towards the other 10 complainants, who were similarly situated as the respondents herein, then, we fail to understand as to why and on what basis, the petitioner says that he cannot be held jointly and severally liable for making the payment to the respondents?---Counsel for the petitioner was unable to give any explanation as to why it chose to file the Revision Petitions only against 4 complainants and not the other 10 complainants except to say that the cause of action in all the 14 complaints is different and he could file the Appeal/Revision Petition against any one of them of his choosing. He cannot choose to file Appeals selectively against some of the complainants and not others. We are unable to appreciate this contention. The facts in all the complaints are common. They were disposed of by a common Order and petitioner was made liable jointly and severally qua all the 14 complainants. If he (petitioner) accepted his liability against 10 other complainants, then, it cannot be held that he is not liable qua the respondents in these Revision Petitions. The petitioner has failed to point out any feature, which distinguishes the case of the respondents from the 10 other complainants---Revision Petitions dismissed. read more +
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. SRI VENKATESHWARA TRADERS dated 2009-02-04
Complainant is doing business in paddy, rice, bran broken and packing material under the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Traders---when the Complainant was processing paddy in the above said M/s Shaffi Raw and Boiled Rice Mill, all of a sudden, the boiler of the said mill stopped working and the paddy that was in the boiler was damaged and became unfit for consumption---Insurance company repudiated the claim---It is evident from the reading of the said Clause that the petitioner covered the loss for the property insured described in the Schedule or any part of such property if the same was destroyed or damaged by fire, lightning or explosion/implosion excluding the loss or damage to the boiler. In this case, the loss was not due to fire, lightning or explosion but was due to damage to the boiler---As the boiler had suddenly stopped functioning due to failure of automatically controlled panel board, the District Forum, by an involved reasoning, came to the conclusion that the damage was caused to the paddy due to fire. The State Commission affirmed the said Order---Held That---the findings recorded by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission run contrary to the case pleaded by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant was that the damage to the paddy was caused because the boiler failed to work and the paddy got damaged and became useless/unfit for consumption. There was no allegation that the damage was caused due to fire, lightning or explosion---petition allowed. read more +
Highland Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hafiza Vadasaria dated 2009-02-02
The petitioner is a Company carrying on activities of establishing resorts and raising plantations---one of the benefits offered by the petitioners to the members was that in the event, a member fails to avail 10 days’ stay in the resort, then, the member shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,250/- per day. According to the respondents, they did not avail of the said benefit and, therefore, they requested the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.12,500/- calculating @ Rs. 1,250/- per day for a period of 10 days. The said request was not accepted by the petitioner on the ground that the agreement entered into between the parties did not provide for the same and, if any, such assurance was given by an employee of the petitioner (Sales Manager) to any member, the same was not binding on the petitioner---Whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by this Commission in the District Forum or the State Commission or any other amount, which may have been deposited, be adjusted towards decreetal amount satisfying the claims of the respondents. After satisfying the claims of the respondents, the balance amount, if any, be paid to the petitioner---petition dismissed.
