Under which circumstance Insurance Company can not reject Mediclaim?

 Returning to the facts of the present case, the strict and actual interpretation of Clause 4 reflects that the Insurance Company is permitted to exclude the expenses borne in case the insured person is suffering from any kind of Pre-existing disease(s) until the insured person is continuously covered under the policy for a minimum period of 48 months. What constitutes Pre-existing disease has been provided in the Insurance Policy itself, which reads as follows:-

“Pre-existing condition/disease definition- any condition, ailment, or injury or related condition for which insured person had signs and symptoms and / or were received medical advice/treatment 48 months prior to his/her Super Top Up Medicare policy with the company”

15. The aforesaid definition clause makes it abundantly clear that in order for a disease to be categorized as pre-existing disease, the Insured must have received medical advice/treatment 48 months prior to purchasing the policy for that particular disease. Whereas, the facts are crystal clear that the prior disease on which the Insurance Company has relied to repudiate the claim of the Insured, was last treated in the year 2004 i.e. 5 years before the Policy No. 2 was purchased. Hence, it cannot be said that the case of the Insured fulfils the essentials of the Pre-Existing disease provided in the Insurance policy.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 161/2016

IN THE MATTER OF

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs

MANMOHAN SINGH 

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 02.08.2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: Government servant can not raise dispute about his service conditions or for service benefits before consumer forum

After considering relevant cases on the point, this Court

concluded as under:

“20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no

stretch of imagination can a government servant raise

any dispute regarding his service conditions or for

payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral

benefits before any of the forum under the Act. The

government servant does not fall under the definition

of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii)

of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to

claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance

with his service conditions and regulations or

statutory rules framed for that purpose. The

appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his

grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal,

if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum

under the Act.

21. In view of the above, we hold that the government

servant cannot approach any of the forum under the

Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

The decision of this Court rendered in Jagmittar Sain

Bhagat was holding the field when the matter was decided by

the State Commission and the National Commission. A plea was

squarely raised by the appellants about the inapplicability of

the provisions of the Act. However, that plea was not gone

into.

In keeping with the principles laid down by this Court in

the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, we hold that the complaint

in the present case was not maintainable before the District

Forum under the provisions of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL N O.8472 OF 2019

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES  Vs  SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE 

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
Dated:NOVEMBER 06, 2019

Print Page

Whether trust can file complaint before consumer forum?

A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been defined in the Act and Section 2(m) thereof defines a person as follows :-

(m)    "person" includes, -

 (i)      a firm whether registered or not;

 (ii)    a Hindu undivided family;

(iii)    a co-operative society;

(iv)    every other association of  persons 

 whether  registered  under  the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not

5. On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

  NON-REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors on 7 March, 2017

Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant

Print Page

Whether Second Complaint to Consumer forum is maintainable?

These Rules do not provide that if
a complaint is dismissed in default by the
District Forum under Rule 4(8) or by the State
Commission under Rule 8(8) of the Rules, a
second complaint would not lie. Thus, there is
no provision parallel to the provision
contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which
contains a prohibition that if a suit is
dismissed in default of the plaintiff under
Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause
of action would not lie. That being so, the
rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule
9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings
before the District Forum or the State
Commission. The fact that the case was not
decided on merits and was dismissed in default
of non-appearance of the complainant cannot be
overlooked and, therefore, it would be
permissible to file a second complaint
explaining why the earlier complaint could not
be pursued and was dismissed in default.”
We have also not been shown any rule similar to Order
IX, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That
being so, and in view of the decision rendered by this
Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, we are
of the opinion that the second complaint filed by the
appellant was maintainable on the facts of this case.
Under the circumstances, we set aside the order
passed by the National Commission and remit the matter
back to the National Commission for adjudicating the
disputes on merits.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2016

INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY V M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Dated:JANUARY 27, 2016

Print Page

When complaint filed before consumer forum will not be barred by limitation?

Strictly speaking, the event that caused the loss or damage to the insured
occurred on 6th August, 1992 when due to heavy incessant rain in Calcutta, the
raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture etc. of the insured were damaged. On
the very next day, the insured lodged a claim with National Insurance. In
response, National Insurance first appointed N.T. Kothari & Co. to assess the
loss suffered by the insured and a report was given by this surveyor after more
than one year. Thereafter, for reasons that are not at all clear, National Insurance
appointed a second surveyor which also took about one year to submit its report
and eventually gave an addendum to that report thereby crossing one year in
completion of its report along with the addendum. In other words, National
Insurance itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of
the loss or damage suffered by the insured. Surely, this entire delay is
attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the insured,
more particularly when the insured had lodged a claim well within time. To
make matters worse, National Insurance actually repudiated the claim of the
insured only on 22nd May, 2001 which is well after the complaint was filed with
the National Commission.
18. In our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the
courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it
is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of
services or goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent
legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by
Parliament. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to
disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is
instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s claim. That
being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National
Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in
this regard.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3883 OF 2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
VS.
HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. 
Dated:April 7, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1900

Print Page

When consumer forum can not take action for non compliance of its order?

The facts stated earlier would clearly show that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable in the instant case. As a matter of record, I must say, in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition No. 4004/2012, this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the present petitioner against the respondent by the order dated 17/12/2012 observed that the order dated 17/01/2007 was so clear as to obviate the need for seeking an additional order of rescinding the decree dated 17/01/2007. These observations clearly implied that the decree dated 17/01/2007 after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of the decree had been rendered inexecutable. Precisely, that was the reason why it was observed that there was no need for the petitioner to seek any order for recalling or rescinding the order or decree dated 17/01/2007 on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount within the stipulated time by the respondent.

8. Once it is found that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable, the only conclusion that is possible would be that no offence is constituted, there being no obligation remaining on the part of the petitioner to be discharged under the law. The learned Members of the Consumer Forum have not considered this fundamental aspect of the whole matter and the result is of passing of an illegal and arbitrary order. The order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained in law. It must go and so the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 742 of 2015

Decided On: 16.08.2016

Aditya Developers

Vs.

 Manish Ranganath Thorat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre, J.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1551

Print Page

When compensation granted to complainant can be reduced on ground that she has adopted dilatory tactics?

 It is undisputed that the Appellant handed over the
plot to the Respondent only in the year 2000 instead of
1989. The Respondent had paid Rs.1,22,400/- towards the
cost of the plot at the rates prevailing in the year of
allotment i.e. 1986. There is no dispute that the
Respondent was paid Rs.1,28,188/- towards interest
awarded by the State Commission. There is also no dispute
about the fact that the Respondent did not commence
construction till 2006. The State Commission while
awarding the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs towards
escalation in the cost of construction commented on the
conduct of the Respondent in delaying the construction only
with a view to claim higher compensation.
15. The point that falls for our consideration in this case is
whether the State Commission was justified in awarding Rs.
15 lakhs towards the escalation in the cost of construction

as compensation. We are of the view that the Respondent is
not entitled to such compensation awarded by the State
Commission and confirmed by the National Commission.
The Respondent suffered an injury due to the delay in
handing over the possession as there was definitely
escalation in the cost of construction. At the same time the
Respondent has surely benefited by the increase in the cost
of plot between 1989 to 2000. In our opinion, the order of
the State Commission is vitiated for non application of mind
to a vital and relevant factor and hence, suffers from the
vice of unreasonableness. The State Commission criticized
the conduct of the Respondent in intentionally delaying the
construction for 6 years but still proceeded to award
compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
we are of the opinion that award of interest would have
been sufficient to compensate the Respondent for the loss
suffered by him due to the delay in handing over the
possession of the plot. The compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs
awarded by the State Commission is excessive.
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7335 of 2008
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, H.U.D.A. & ANR.

V
SHAKUNTLA DEVI
Dated:December 8, 2016
Citation: (2017) 2 SCC 301

Print Page

Whether time spent before Consumer Forum can be excluded in terms of S 14 of Limitation Act?

As such, the only aspect to be examined is whether the
time spent before the Consumer Forum can be excluded in terms of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this connection, it would
also be appropriate to note that the fact that the proceedings were
initiated bonafide and that the respondents were also parties to such
proceedings and defending their claim, is also undisputed. In this
connection, a Division Bench of this Court in a Judgment reported in
AIR 2001 BOMBAY 327 in the case of M/s. Deokar Exports Pvt.
Ltd., vs. new India Assurance Co. Ltd., has taken a view that the time
taken in pursuing a complaint before the Consumer Forum is to be
excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, by observing at
para 10, thus:
“10. We may note that on 10-2-1990, fire broke out
and the machinery was damaged. The respondent
was immediately informed orally by the appellant.
However, the respondent was informed in writing on
17-2-1990. Correspondence followed between the
"parties. The respondent declined to pay the claim of
the appellant on 18-4-1990. The appellant
approached the said NCDRC on 20-8-1991. The
same was decided by the said forum on 23-9-1992. It
came to be rejected on the ground that considering 
the contention of the respondent there was no
deficiency in service. Therefore, it has no
jurisdiction and appellant can avail of any other
remedy available. Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act,
1963 provides three years limitation from the date of
occurrence causing loss or where the claim on the
policy is denied the date of such denial. Section 14
deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide
in Court without jurisdiction. Section 14(1) is as
under :--
"14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona
fide in Court without jurisdiction.-- (1) In
computing the period of limitation for any
suit the time during which the plaintiff has
been prosecuting with due diligence another
civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first
instance or of appeal or revision, against the
defendant shall be excluded, where the
proceeding relates to the same matter in issue
and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court
which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other
cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain
it."
Considering the above position, it cannot be
accepted that the resort by the appellant to the said
forum of NCDRC was not in good faith or bona fide
or it was deliberately chosen knowing full well that 
it was incompetent to deal with it. The order passed
by the said Forum shows that the appellant has
approached the said Forum bona fide and hence the
respondent was permitted to avail of any other
remedy available. At the most, it may be said that
the further steps by the appellant of going before the
Apex Court by filing S.L.P, was not in good faith.
However, in view of Section 14(1) of the Limitation
Act, the appellant is entitled for exclusion of the
period from 20th August, 1991 to 30-9-1992. The
learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied
upon the judgment in the matter of Saushish
Diamonds Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
MANU/SC/1175/1998 : (1998)8SCC357 . In the
said case, precisely the same position concurred.
The appellant had approached the National
Commission for Consumer Redressal. The said
Commission in its order held that the Insurance
Company has repudiated the claim. Hence, the relief
cannot be granted by it. This order came to be
challenged before the Apex Court. It was observed
as under :--
"..... Under these circumstances, the Commission
rightly relegated the parties to a civil action. It is
true that limitation has run out against the
appellant during the pendency of the
proceedings. Therefore, the time taken between 
the date of the filing of the claim before the
Commission and the date of its disposal, namely,
28-9-1995 would be considered by the Civil
Court for exclusion under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963."
In view of the above position, we hold that the suit
filed by the appellant was within limitation.”
The Karnataka High Court, in the Judgment reported in ILR 2004 KAR
4322, SCC Online Karnataka 121 in the case of The City Municipal
Council vs. M/s. S.A. Lateef & Co. Andhra Pradesh, has also taken a
similar view that the period taken in pursuing remedy under the
Consumer Protection Act can be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act by observing thus :
“LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (CENTRAL ACT NO.
36 OF 1963) – SECTION 14-Exclusion of time of
proceedings 'Bonafide' in Court without jurisdiction
– Computing the period of limitation – Prosecuting
with due diligence in another Civil Proceeding in
good faith under Consumer Protection Act. The
plaintiff had filed a complaint before District
Consumer Forum for recovery of unpaid price. The
complaint was allowed and defendant was directed
to pay the amount. In the appeal, the State
Commission by its order dated 16.1.1996, held that 
the subject matter of dispute is not governed by
Consumer Protection Act and gave liberty to the
plaintiff to approach Civil Court; Accordingly suit is
filed. HELD – Provisions of Section 14 declare that
bonafidely and with due diligence if a person is
prosecuting any Civil Proceedings, in any other
Court which has no competent jurisdiction, the
period spent in that litigation is to be deducted. The
District Consumer Forum is very much a Court of
Civil jurisdiction and the proceedings before the
Consumer Forum are Civil Proceedings. Merely by
the fact that State Forum has held that the complaint
is not maintainable and that the plaintiff is not a
consumer within the definition, is not a ground by
itself to infer that there was lack of diligence or
bonafides on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
was assisted by the Counsel. The District Forum
entertained the complaint and granted a decree. The
limitation for filing the suit in the normal course was
22.3.96. The complaint before the Forum was filed
on 7.1.95 and proceedings under Consumer
Protection Act finally terminated on 9.1.97. About 2
years and 8 months is spent in litigation before
Consumer Forum. If the said period is deducted, the
present suit filed on 12.1.98 is well within the
limitation. Therefore, the grant of benefit of Section
14 of Limitation Act by Trial Court is sound and 
proper.”
In AIR 1995 SC 1428, in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs.
P.S.G. Industrial Institute, the Apex Court has observed, inter alia, at
para 26 that in case the appellant chooses to file a suit, the period taken
in pursuing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is to be
excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. A similar view
has also been taken by the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in
(1998) 8 SCC 357 in the case of Saushish Diamonds Ltd. vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd..
12. Taking note of the observations of the Division Bench of
this Court and of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, the fact that
time taken to pursue a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act
can be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
no longer res integra and, as such, the contention of Mr. Tamba,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 that such time
cannot be excluded, cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the
fact that the proceedings were bonafide are apparent in the context that
the proceedings were diligently pursued by the appellants before the
State Commission and, in fact, on perusal of the Judgment of the
learned State Commission, it is clearly held that the appellants were
granted leave to pursue their claim by filing a civil suit. As such, the
suit filed by the appellant is within the period of limitation in terms of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The first point for
determination is answered accordingly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2009
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 182/2015
 Shangrilla Apartments Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd.
 Versus
 M/s. Rivin Builders, 
 CORAM :- F.M. REIS &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
 Date : - 08/07/2015.
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR136

Print Page

CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM IMPOSES FINE ON HOTEL FOR CHARGING A CUSTOMER OVER AND ABOVE MRP

The apex consumer forum has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1.56 lakh on a Gujarat-based hotel for charging customers Rs 5.5 above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a soft drink.

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed the cost reiterating earlier judicial rulings barring hotels and eateries from charging above the MRP.

The ruling came on a petition filed by a Bharuch-based hotel Nyay Mandir, which challenged the Gujarat State Commission's order to pay Rs 6,000 as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs 18 for beverage 'Miranda', despite its MRP being only Rs 12.50.

Print Page

Whether Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in case of financial fraud?

In an historical decision, the NCDRC held that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy 

 

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant decision, has held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act in case of defaults from a financial establishment. In a related case, the apex consumer Commission has asked Nagpur-based Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt Ltd to refund money invested along with a 9% interest from filing the complaint. The NCDRC also directed the company to pay 10% of the amount invested as compensation and Rs1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 

 

Print Page

SBI deducts money from judge’s a/c, pulled up by court

BAREILLY: Deducting a sum of Rs 400 from the recurring deposit account of a sitting judge of the district court without a valid reason proved costly for the State Bank of India (SBI) main branch here. The consumer court slapped a fine of Rs 2,000 on the bank and ordered it to refund Rs 400 that was deducted from the judge's account. 

The complainant, Mridulesh Kumar Singh, posted as the Additional District and Sessions Judge, fast track court, Bareilly, had opened a recurring deposit account at SBI branch in 2013 for one year, his lawyer Sanjay Verma said. 

Print Page

When consumer forum can decide dispute relating to Sim deactivation?

We find that the said provision is in respect of dispute between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus has been provided. Present dispute is not between the telegraph authority and Mr.Rajesh. Here the present complaint is filed by Rajesh against Bharati Airtail Ltd. In view of the definition of Telegraph authority as given in Section 3 Sub-section (6) of the Telegraph Act. Bharati Airtel Ltd. is not a telegraph authority and hence, Section 7(B) of the Telegraph Act cannot be attracted in the present matter. As per the said definition as telegraph authority means the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is material to note in the authority relied by the Opponent the said complaint was filed against General Manager, Telegraph, which can come under the definition of Telegraph Authority. Thus, on this count itself the said authority is not helpful to the present case.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri Rajesh Ramesh Shende vs Bharti Airtel Ltd. on 24 March, 2014

Citation;2015(2)ALLMR(JOURNAL)103

Print Page

Mumbai doctor absent during delivery, will pay Rs 19 lakh as baby dies

A consumer forum recently directed a doctor to pay a compensation of Rs 19 lakh to a Malad woman who lost her child hours after birth due to his absence during birth and late arrival when the child was in distress.

“The death was due to the doctor’s negligence. He is responsible for the trauma caused to the family,” the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said.

Print Page

Whether consumer forum is bound to send complaint for arbitration when there is arbitration clause?

Another aspect in relation to the consumer disputes which has to be taken note of is that most of the complainants /consumers sign the agreement containing an arbitration clause under duress(instance is taken from Builder’s agreement) because the other party which is in a dominating position insists for it, else they would  not enter into builders’ agreement.  In most of the cases, the builder who is in a dominating position reserves the right to appoint Sole Arbitrator to himself and the Arbitrator so appointed in most of the cases is the officer of the builder from whom it is almost impossible to expect an impartial and fair award.  If the builder is allowed to have resort to the arbitration agreement contained in the Builder’s agreement, going by the prevalent practice and little experience we have in the matters, the consumer would never be able to redress his genuine grievance. Legislature by providing the additional remedy under Section 3 of the C.P. Act has tried to take care of such a situation to redress the grievances of the small consumers.   

34.    Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and in particular in Madhusudhan Reddy’s case (supra), the question referred is answered in negative, i.e. in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite Parties. It is held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the C.P Act are not bound to refer the dispute raised in the complaint on an application filed u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 seeking reference of the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of valid arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. 

 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 412 OF 2011

(Against the order dated 4.01.2011 in Misc. Appl. No. 688/2010 in Complaint No. 37 / 2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana)

DLF Limited,

Versus

Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd.,

PRONOUNCED ON:            13.05.2013

 

Print Page

Whether motor vehicle Act will prevail over consumer protection Act ?

While holding that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint arising out of fatal accident while travelling in vehicle, NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. challenging the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. Earlier a complaint before Consumer Forum was filed by complainant whose father while travelling in bus of Rajasthan SRTC met with an accident and on account of injuries, died. Though a complaint claim petition was pending before MACT, Sikar, District Forum granted compensation and its appeal before State Commission was dismissed. In revision Rajasthan SRTC prayed for relief and contended that it has neither charged any amount for insurance from complainant nor Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to decide complaint. NCDRC, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn. v. Consumer Protection Council, (1995) 2 SCC 479 reiterated that Claim Tribunal constituted for the area under Motor Vehicle Act had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the fatal accident and as Consumer Protection Act is a general law, it must yield to the special law. 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 2843 OF 2012

 (From the order dated 11.04.2012 in Appeal No. 96 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)

 Manager,

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,

Beawar, Ajmer

 Versus

Mr. Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,  PRESIDING MEMBER      HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

                             

PRONOUNCED ON   9^th May,  2014

 

Print Page

Insured is not expected to engage a watchman or a guard to look after insured vehicle

This condition does not stipulate that the Insured was expected to engage a watchman or a guard to look after the insured vehicle.  May be ideally, the Complainant’s driver should not have kept the keys of the truck inside the truck but, it is not that he had not locked the doors of the truck and after locking the doors of the truck, he had handed over the keys of the doors of the truck to the owner’s son and this should have been a sufficient safeguard for preventing theft of the insured vehicle, for getting reimbursement from the Insurance Company upon theft of insured vehicle.  Learned Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant vehemently denied the contention raised by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company to the effect that the driver had kept the keys of the truck inside the truck. In any case, we do not find any perversity in the conclusion reached in the order passed by the District Forum that the Complainant had taken sufficient care of the insured vehicle and there was no breach of any terms & conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the Complainant.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

First Appeal No. A/11/896 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2011 in Case No. 120/2011 of District Nashik) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ...........Appellant(s) Versus SMT. KUSUM POPAT KARDILE

BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member

PRESENT: Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil for the Appellant Adv. Ashutosh Marathe for the Respondent

ORAL ORDER Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President  Citation;2014(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)43

Print Page