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

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