Skip to main content

National commission rejects medical shop's plea.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a revision petition filed by medical stores company against an order of state commission directing the insurance company to pay only Rs one lakh compensation.

The complainant was running a medicine store which was taken on rent by another person. The complainant obtained "Shopkeepers Insurance Policy" from the insurance company for a sum of Rs 5.10 lakh for a period commencing from March 2006 to March 2007. The shop was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, in June 2006 with the help of bull dozer and JCB without any prior notice to the complainant on the ground of unauthorized occupation of the premises.

In spite of injunction from the court, the entire shop along with goods and furniture and fixture was destroyed. The complainant alleged that due to malicious act on the part of Municipal Corporation, he sustained loss of Rs 4.85 lakh. The complainant filed claim before the company which was repudiated.

Alleging deficiency on the part of OP (opposite party), the complainant filed complaint before District Forum. The OP contested the complaint and submitted that complaint was beyond the scope of policy as loss was caused due to action initiated by the public authority and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. The District Forum, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs 4.85 lakh along with compensation of Rs 5,000. An appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by the State Commission which reduced the amount of compensation from to Rs one lakh against which, the revision petition has been filed.

The commission, however, said that there was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-18/mumbai/45336181_1_medical-shop-district-forum-complaint

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more