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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more