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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more