Skip to main content

Oriental Insurance Company asked to pay 1 cr claim for loss

The apex consumer commission has directed an insurance company to pay around Rs one crore claim to three firms, which were insured with it, for their loss caused due to fire in their garments unit in Tripura in 1998.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to pay a total of Rs 98,02,863 as claim to Tripura-based firms Sri Priyaluckshmi Garments, Sri Priyaluckshmi Exports and Sri Priyaluckshmi Apparels.

"We direct the opposite parties (insurance company) to pay the complainants (three firms) Rs 98,02,863 (a sum of Rs 74,69,331, Rs 14,25,073 and Rs 9,08,459 respectively)," the bench presided by Justice J M Malik said, adding the amount would be paid with interest from the date of the incident in 1998.

The bench, also comprising member S M Kantikar, directed the insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs five lakh to the three firms.

The bench passed the order on a complaint jointly filed by the three firms against New Delhi and Tripura branches of the insurance company and its Coimbatore-based Divisional Manager.

The garments firms said they had obtained six insurance policies against fire from the insurance company.

The firms told the Commission that on February 21, 1998, a fire had broken out in their factory premises in Tripura, the reason for which was suspected to be an electric short circuit. The firms had claimed a loss of around Rs three crore.

The insurance company was also informed about the mishap, the firms said, adding that after doing surveys over a period of a year, the insurance company had put the blame for the mishap on the complainants.

The insurance company and its officials claimed the firms had failed to produce the documents as required by them and the delay was delay was caused by the companies. It also alleged the fire was not accidental.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oriental-insurance-company-asked-to-pay-1-cr-claim-for-loss-114051401165_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more