Tribunals and Commissions(1991) 12 NCDRC CK 0012

VIJAYA INDUSTRIES vs REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 December 1991 · Citation: 1992 1 CPJ 261 : 1992 1 CPR 330

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.G.Desai , K.R.Ramaswamy Iyengar , Susheela Cheluvaraju J.
RESULT
Complaint partly allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 349 words
1.

THE complaint in this case is in respect of the claim of the Complainant under two policies, Viz., (1) 071901/167/11/00931/90 for Rs. 3,50,000/- and (2) 071901/167/48/00114/90 for Rs. 75,00/- , issued by the Respondent. THE Respondent has produced two letters-written by the Divisional Manager of the Respondent to the Complainant and the other written by the Partner of the Complainant and the other written by the Partner of the Complainant to the Divisional Manager of the Respondent. By the letter dated 68-1991 written by the Partner of the Complainant to the Respondents'' Divisional Manager, he has agreed to accept the settlement of the claim in respect of policy No. 071901/167/48/00114/90 for 65% of the assessed loss. THE respondent''s Counsel stated that the Respondent would pay the amount agreed to by the parties to the Complainant and, hence, the claim of the complainant in respect of that policy has been settled. In respect of the second policy, Respondent Insurance Company, has stated that the policy covered the stock stored in the building situated at No. 382/2, M.C. Road, Davangere, that the Survey Report reveals that the stock stored in the building situated at No. 667/1, Mandipet, Davangere, was damaged. From this, it is clear that the Insurance Company has taken action on the claim preferred by the Complainant and has intimated the complainant that his claim under that policy is false and that it is not liable to pay anything to the goods damaged, which were stored in the building which was not insured. Thus, it is clear that there has been no deficiency in service by the insurer in respect of that policy. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the complainant in respect of other policy is to file a suit in appropriate Civil Court.

2.

IN the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Respondent is directed to day 65% assessed loss in respect of policy No. 2 stated above to the Complainant within one month from today. The complaint, in so far as it relates to other policy, is dismissed. No costs. Complaint partly allowed.