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

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...

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...

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...