Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V/S M/S. KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, decided on Monday, January 9, 2017.
[ In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), First Appeal No. 110 of 2010. ] 09/01/2017
Advocate(s) : Kishore Rawat. Exparte.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   06/12/2017.  

  Central Secretariat Club & Another Versus Geetam Singh & Another,   02/11/2017.  

  Azad Hawkers Union & Others Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of HSG & Urban Poverty Alleviation & Others,   01/11/2017.  

  Union of India Versus Vijay Krishna Uniyal (D) through L.Rs.,   23/10/2017.  

  Trammo DMCC (formerly Known as Transammonia) DMCC) Versus Nagarjuna Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd.,   09/10/2017.  

  State of Kerala & Others Versus Fr. William Fernandez & Others,   09/10/2017.  

  M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. Versus ICICI Bank & Another,   31/08/2017.  

  Legal Heris of Decd Umedmiya R Rathod & Others Versus State of Gujarat,   04/08/2017.  

  Sarvodaya Education Trust, Rep. by its Secretary, Virajpet & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Others,   03/08/2017.  

  Eera Through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another,   21/07/2017.  

  Ajit Singh & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others,   06/07/2017.  

  K. Ratna Prabha & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Special Standing Counsel ACB & Others,   20/06/2017.  

  M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd.,   09/06/2017.  

  Union of India & Another Versus M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited & Another,   09/06/2017.  

  Pinaka Radha Krishna Versus Dasmesha Agricultural Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Others,   09/05/2017.  

  Bihar Distillers & Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh & Others Versus The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others,   03/05/2017.  

  Vineet Arora Versus M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited, (Mohali Hills), & Another,   25/04/2017.  

  Visakhapatnam Contract Labour Union, rep. by its General Secretary Versus Steel Authority of India Limited, rep. by its Management & Others,   21/04/2017.  

  G.R. Karunakar Versus M/s Lakshmi Mega Township HADA(HUDA) approved Group Housing Layout, a partnership firm rep. by Its Managing Partners & Another,   19/04/2017.  

  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus S.N. Anantha & Another,   03/04/2017.  

  Managing Director, Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Panch Batti, Jaipur Versus The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Others,   10/03/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  Swapan Kumar Roy & Others Versus M/s. Sree Krishna Developers & Others,   06/03/2017.  

  CIPLA Limited Versus M/s. CIPLA Industries Private Limited & Another,   01/03/2017.  

  Avtar Singh Kalra & Others Versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh & Another,   01/03/2017.  

  Union of India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Govt of India Enterprise Rep by its Chief Engineer (Electrical) Versus P. Shyamala & Another,   27/01/2017.  

  Rajesh Malhotra & Others Versus Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others,   15/12/2016.  

  Balasaheb Dagadu Yeole & Another Versus Sangamner Taluka Vikas Pratishthan Bhairavnath Madhyamik Vidyalaya,   09/12/2016.  

  State of H.P. & Others Versus Rajesh Chander Sood & Others,   28/09/2016.  

  M/s. Super Sales India Ltd., (Previously known as M/s. Super Sales Agencies Ltd.,) Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Versus The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Others,   08/09/2016.  

  Abhishek Mishra Versus State of U.P. & Others,   08/09/2016.  

  Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director & Others Versus P. Ramesh,   08/09/2016.  

  Aircel Cellular Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India, Thro' Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others,   11/08/2016.  

  Surajit Nundy & Others Versus Management of Mirambika Free Progress School & Others,   07/07/2016.  

  Roptonal Ltd. (Erstwhile the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd. & Another Versus Anees Bazmee,   08/06/2016.  

  Rattan India Power Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary & Others,   05/05/2016.  

  Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,   02/05/2016.  

  Mahesh Kumar Versus M/s. Shubhankar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Others,   29/04/2016.  

  M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited name changed as M/s. Sun pharmaceuticals Limited represented by Arun Sawhney (for short, ?Sun?) & Others Versus State of Telangana through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another,   01/04/2016.  

  M/s. Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director K. Kotrabasappa & Others Versus City Union Bank Ltd. Having its registered Office & Others,   22/03/2016.  

  N. Srinivasan Versus State of Telangana rep., Public Prosecutor & Another,   18/03/2016.  

  Manoj Metals & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai.,   02/03/2016.  

  Ramapuram Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary Versus St. Basil Industries India (P) Limited represented by its Director Shans Paul & Others,   02/03/2016.  

  Nashik Workers Union Versus Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,   26/02/2016.  

  Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Others Versus S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association & Another,   29/01/2016.  

  Union of India & Another Versus Shankar Lal Sharma,   28/12/2015.  

  Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary & Others Versus Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others,   23/12/2015.  

  M/s. Noble Import Private Limited, Telangana rep, by its Manager R. Vishwanath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Rep., by its Secretary & Others,   17/12/2015.  

  M/s. Hindustan Ispat Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others,   16/11/2015.  

  Inventurus Knowledge Services (P.) Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, 5(2)(1), Mumbai,   21/10/2015.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (1) CPR 102"  ==   ""  

    This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Complt. No. 116/2000 – M/s. Krishna Industries Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. by which complaint was allowed.2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent obtained policy from OP/appellant to cover 11455 kgs. of groundnut oil in tanker from Navagadh (Jetpur) to Sarkhej (Gujarat) for a total sum of Rs.5 68 378/-. Complainant despatched groundnut oil vide Bill No. 019 dated 5.11.1998 through Mahesh Roadline tanker GTY 5760. Tanker met with an accident. Oil in the tanker spread on the road. On 25.11.1998 Mahesh Roadline gave certificate of shortage and FIR was also lodged at Police Station. It was further submitted that complainant’s surveyor conducted spot survey and gave report on 10.11.1998. Complainant lodged claim with OP. OP entrusted the matter to investigator – M/s. Contact Cargo Claims Consultant who submitted false report on the basis of which OP repudiated claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before State Commission.3. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per investigators report; all documents submitted by complainant were fake. It was further submitted that complainant was not owner of oil in question and complainant had no insurable interest in the oil lying in the tanker. It was further submitted that 11455 kgs. of groundnut oilwas not in the tanker and further submitted that claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5 50 717/- with 8% p.a. interest along with cost of Rs.10 000/- against which this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.4. None appeared for respondent even after service of notice and respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Delay was condoned by order dated18.5.2010 subject to cost.5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in placing reliance on complainant’s surveyors report by discarding OP’s report; hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to give opportunity to the parties to file evidence by way of affidavit and decide complaint afresh.7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has allowed complaint on the basis of complainant’s surveyor Umesh G. Kekre’s report who inspected site and submitted report without any notice to the OP and learned State Commission observed that as complainant has submitted surveyors report and documents on oath and OP has not filed affidavit of investigator; so investigators report cannot be relied on. Perusal of record reveals that intimation to Insurance Company of the incident was given on 9.11.1998 i.e. after 4 days of the accident and complainant’s surveyor submitted report on 10.11.1998 without any notice to OP. No doubt OP should have appointed surveyor but it appears that on account of complainant’s surveyors report OP appointed investigator who submitted report on 24.9.1998 in which after investigation it was observed as under:“7.1 The records presented to us and the inquiries conducted by us indicated that the insured is virtually closed. The premises are closed long time back (photograph enclosed). The insured is not operating from the said premises.7.2 The insured is not declaring all the consignments failing under the purview of the open policy issued to them.7.3 The alleged Bill No. 019 dated 05.11.1998 was ceased by the collector in the month of May 1998. The insured was therefore not authorized to issue the alleged Bill No. 019 on the date of shipment. The insured has therefore submitted bogus bill.7.4 Anmol Weigh Bridge did not issue the weigh slip submitted by the insured. The insured has therefore submitted bogus weigh slip.7.5 The carrier also stated that the consignment was loaded from Jamnagar and not from M/s. Krishna Industries Jetpur. The insured submitted bogus L.R.7.6 The carriers have confirmed that they have not issued shortage certificate to Krishna Industries. The insured have therefore submitted bogus shortage certificate.7.7 The claim therefore appears to be based on Faise & Forged documents. The said transaction can therefore be assumed “illegal” and against the “law”.”8. Perusal of aforesaid investigation report reveals that according to investigator all documents filed by complainant were fake. Perusal of record further reveals that surveyor of complainant has also not filed affidavit to prove his surveyors report and in such circumstances learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint on the basis of complainant’s surveyors report and rejecting OP’s investigator report for not filing affidavit of the investigator. Learned State Commission should have either not believed both the reports or should have believed both the reports or should have given opportunity to both the parties to file affidavit of respective surveyors and investigators and should have decided complaint.9. In the light of aforesaid discussion it would be appropriate to set aside impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission to give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavit to prove their documents and decide complaint afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.10. Consequently appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned State Commission in Complaint No. 116/2000 – M/s. Krishna Industries Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide complaint afresh in the light of observations made above.11. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 13.02.2017.