w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi v/s Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = L67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = U67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1965GOI004322

Company & Directors' Information:- BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U66010PN2000PLC015329

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. CEMENT LIMITED. [Active] CIN = L17229UP1994PLC017199

Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- ASTHA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910TG1989PTC010310

Company & Directors' Information:- CEMENT INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = U26942AS1994PLC004154

Company & Directors' Information:- S. P. CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26940MP2006PTC018404

Company & Directors' Information:- S. P. CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01531MP2006PTC018404

Company & Directors' Information:- BAJAJ AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U00000DL1990PTC041995

Company & Directors' Information:- S D CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC072298

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INSURANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U66010UP1933PLC000509

Company & Directors' Information:- P B CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36900WB2009PTC138825

Company & Directors' Information:- V K CEMENT LTD [Active] CIN = U26942PB1994PLC014122

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CEMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26941CH1982PTC004960

Company & Directors' Information:- B S CEMENT PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U26942OR1986PTC001767

Company & Directors' Information:- M P CEMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26942CT1984PTC002333

Company & Directors' Information:- J K CEMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26941GJ1981PTC004569

Company & Directors' Information:- R. M. CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26941CT2009PTC021396

Company & Directors' Information:- A R CEMENT CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U02694MP1982PTC002042

Company & Directors' Information:- K L CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26940WB2008PTC127270

Company & Directors' Information:- BAJAJ (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1986PTC040285

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047484

Company & Directors' Information:- S. K. CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960WB2012PTC187806

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- S F S ALLIANZ PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2012PTC227999

Company & Directors' Information:- BAJAJ INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1976PTC008210

Company & Directors' Information:- D & D CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26941GJ2009PTC057912

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- I.N. INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200DL1994PTC062554

Company & Directors' Information:- INSURANCE OF INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1936PLC008634

    Revision Petition No. 2765 of 2015

    Decided On, 18 August 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sunanda Nimisha, Advocate. For the Respondent: Aditya Narain, Arnav Narain, Anushree Narain, Mishra Raj, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Oral:

The complainant / respondent owned a truck which he had got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2011. The vehicle was stolen when parked outside a restaurant / dhaba in the night of 29.12.2010. The driver of the truck had gone inside the dhaba / restaurant, to take his dinner, after parking the vehicle outside the said dhaba / restaurant. When he came out, the vehicle was found missing. An FIR was lodged by him. The truck could not be recovered and therefore, a claim was lodged with the insurer. Vide letter dated 17.9.2011, the insurer sought clarification from the complainant on the following observations:

“This is with reference to your above reported theft claim, after scrutiny of the documents submitted by your good-self following observation has been made:

1. At the material time of theft of your vehicle the vehicle was unlocked and the same was in drivable condition which resulted into theft of your aforesaid vehicle and the same amounts to gross negligence of your part / users part.

By being gross negligent you / user has violated the policy terms and conditions namely condition which stipulated as under:

“The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain in in efficient condition.”

2. You have not arranged the meeting of your driver with the investigator till date.

In view of the aforesaid reason and also since no original keys have been submitted to our investigator during the investigation please clarify within seven days from the receipt of this letter as to why your claim should not be repudiated.”

2. The complainant responded to the said letter on 22.9.2011 and the reply given by him reads as under:

“I beg to state my driver after parking the vehicle in a Hotel, came down and after checking the tyre has directly went to the hotel and sat down to have his food wherein he forgot to lock the vehicle and the key was left in the vehicle itself. The second key is already submitted at your Alwar Office on 13.6.2011.”

The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 26.9.2011 as the explanation given by the complainant was not found to be satisfactory.

3. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The petitioner company resisted the claim, primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.

4. The District Forum having dismissed the consumer complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 02.7.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner company is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6. It is evident from a perusal of the letter dated 22.9.2011 sent by none other than the complainant company itself to the insurer, in reply to its letter dated 17.9.2011, that the driver had not locked the truck before going to the restaurant for taking dinner and the keys of the truck were also left by him inside the vehicle. Though, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the aforesaid letter dated 22.9.2011 was procured by the petitioner company from the complainant, no such averment is found in the consumer complaint. Hence the submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

7. The driver of the vehicle ought to have not only locked the vehicle; he should also have taken the keys of the vehicle with him while going inside the restaurant for taking dinner. The driver of the vehicle failed to take reasonable care with respect to the safety of the vehicle, he having left the vehicle unlocked and also having left the keys inside the vehicle. As a result, it became possible for the person who committed theft of the vehicle not only to get inside the truck but also drive it away, using the keys which have been left in the vehicle. It is also obvious that the vehicle was not visible to the driver form the table where he was taking dinner because had the truck been visible from his table, he would certainly has raised an alarm and come out of the restaurant when he saw the thief entering the vehicle and trying to take it away.

8. The issue involved in this matter came up for consideration of this Commission in RP/1239/2018 TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh & Anr. decided on 21.5.2019 and the following view was taken:

“8. A perusal of the statement of truck driver Sh. Pratap Singh, which is available on page no. 89-90 of the paper-book, would show that after parking the vehicle, he alongwith the conductor, went to sleep at another place. While leaving the truck in the parking, the driver did not lock the same and left the key of the truck in its ignition. As a result, it became an invitation to a person passing through the vehicle to take advantage of the aforesaid negligence on the part of the truck driver, and commit theft of the truck using the key which the driver had left in its ignition. Since both the driver and conductor had left the vehicle unattended for about four hours and there is nothing in the statement of the driver to even indicate that the truck was visible to them at the place where they had gone to sleep, neither the truck nor the conductor could have kept a check on the truck after they had left it unattended. In any case, after having gone to sleep for about four hours, it would not have been possible for them to keep an eye on the truck. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that they had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss or damage. They had thereby contravened condition No.5 of the insurance policy.

9. A similar issue recently came up for consideration of this Commission in RP No.1893 of 2016 & RP No.3198 of 2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashish Kumar Walecha and Ashish Kumar Walecha Vs. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20.04.2017. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), the complainant had left the key of the vehicle in the ignition while going to meet a friend residing nearby. When he returned after 30 minutes, the vehicle was found missing. The theft was later reported to the police and intimation of the theft was also given to the insurer. The claim was rejected by the insurer vide a repudiation letter dated 09.07.2012 which read as under:

"With reference to the claim documents submitted it has been observed that on 20.10.2011 as usual you have gone to your friend's residence and parked the vehicle opposite to his residence at Garba ground, Samata Colony. Leaving the key in the ignition itself you have gone to meet your friends. Upon returning after half an hour it was noticed that the vehicle was missing from the parked place. This has lead to your vehicle being stolen.

This constitutes breach of policy condition No.5 which is reproduced below for reference:

Condition No.5 -

The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk".

Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint having been dismissed by the District Forum, but having been partly allowed by the State Commission, the insurer approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. This Commission inter-alia observed and held as under:

"6. By leaving the key of the car in the ignition and not locking the vehicle, the complainant failed to take reasonable steps for safeguarding the vehicle from loss, since leaving the key in the ignition of the vehicle would tempt any thief to commit theft of the vehicle, when the vehicle is left unlocked. The complainant therefore, contravened condition no.5 of the insurance policy in the aforesaid manner. In view of the breach of the above referred condition, the insurer is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of his own negligence.

7. A similar issue came for consideration of this Commission in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar, RP No.157 of 2016 decided on 20.07.2016 where the ignition key was left inside the ignition switch of the vehicle and the door of the vehicle was also open. Dismissing the complaint, this Commission inter-alia held and observed as under:

"5. ........If the driver of the vehicle leaves the key in the ignition and also does not lock the door of the vehicle while going to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible to him, such an act in my opinion, amounts to a failure to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The driver knew that if he left the key in the ignition and the door unlocked, anybody could commit theft of the vehicle taking advantage of his being away from the vehicle. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

6. In Arjun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Revision petition No.3182 of 2014, decided on 28.8.2014, the driver of the truck left the truck in start condition near All India Institute of Medical Sciences and went out to ease himself. When he returned after 10-15 minutes, the vehicle was found missing. The claim having been rejected, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum held in favour of the complainant but the State Commission ruled against him. The matter was then agitated by the complainant before this Commission. Dismissing the revision petition, it was interalia held that if the driver leaves the key in the ignition, he would be negligent and the theft taking place on account of his negligence, the insurer cannot be made liable to reimburse the insured."

9. The learned counsel for the complainant relies upon the decision of the Hon’

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) decided on 08.5.2008 as well as the decision of this Commission in RP/3119 of 2016 New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pravin Krushna Tatkari, decided on 13.7.2017. However, neither of the above referred two decisions applies to a situation where the driver not only leaves the truck unlocked, but also leaves the keys inside the vehicle, thereby giving open invitation for committing theft of the vehicle. 10. The complainant committed a breach of a fundamental term of the insurance policy as the driver employed by him left the truck unlocked and also left the keys inside the vehicle while going in a dhaba/restaurant for taking his dinner. The insurer therefore, was justified in repudiating the claim. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Consumer Complaint is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs. 11. The amount deposited by the petitioner company in compliance of the interim order of this Commission be released to the petitioner along with interest which may have accrued on that amount. The revision petition stands disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Chief Manager Versus Seetakanta Patnaik National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 Jewellery World, Orissa Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Orissa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rasipuram & Others Versus Arukkani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet Versus N. Thangavel, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam, Represented by its Branch manager, Kumbakonam Versus Nirmala & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur Versus Brahmanand Javvadi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 Mangala & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Panaji, Goa, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, Bengaluru Versus Imran Khan & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Mangaluru Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-09-2020 M/s. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus T. Paul Raj National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai Versus Tamilarasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Nirmala Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Coimbatore & Another Versus N. Dhanalakshmi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
16-09-2020 Manager [Legal], Reliance General Insurance Company, Chennai Versus Jeya & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vishwanatha & Another High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Sandip Kumar Bajaj & Another Versus State Bank of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Banshiram Bishnoi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-09-2020 J.K. White Cement Works, Uttar Pradesh Versus Rajender Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., E.B.RIICO Industrial Area, Rajasthan Versus Chinnaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Sanjay Khandelwal Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Parvathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench