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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more